If hypocrisy doesn’t make you want to throw down Jesus Christ’s yellow rose and march right off the set then something is wrong with you.

Stephen King and the Second Amendment
By Ron Capshaw | National Review

Stephen King has declared his support for gun control in an 8,000-word essay published by Amazon. In it, King condemns the NRA and advocates banning guns with more than ten rounds. He even goes beyond Obama’s pledge to protect hunting rifles and calls on hunters to give up “their sporting toys.”

He says he wants fewer guns in America. But . .

In The Stand, after millions of American citizens are wiped out by a “superflu” created in an Army lab, the libertarian argument of how helpless an unarmed citizenry would be in a country where only criminals and the Army have guns is validated in the book’s black-helicopter America.

And what happens?

Televised broadcasts show citizens in a lethal gauntlet between the army on one side and far-left terrorists on the other. Freedom of the press is eradicated as broadcasters are forced to read government propaganda with a gun literally pointed at their heads.

It’s like a nightmare.

In the more contemporary Desperation, a lone highway patrolman is able to capture whole groups of unarmed drivers. Without weapons, the captives are unable to prevent the police officer from killing a little girl. The captors escape and, rather than phoning the ACLU, obtain as many automatic weapons as possible.

It’s like some kinda horror show.

And consider the novel Cujo. Had the mother been carrying even a hunting rifle she could have shot the rabid dog within seconds of encountering the animal, and thus spared her son a slow death.

Suppose you’re a wisp of a girl. Yes, you, with your dirty pillows. Suppose you’re the type for gym shower shenanigans. Suppose you can juggle knives with your mind. Suppose you can turn John Travolta’s car into a bonfire. Suppose you can turn John Travolta into a bonfire. Who more than you needs a Laser-Sighted Bushmaster M4A3 16″ Patrolman’s Carbine? Nobody. Are your schoolmates going to tease you? Not any more. When they vote you Prom Queen, you can be sure they mean it.

I would imagine when you’re hired on as a National Review racist that you’re expected to do better than this. The desk comes with expectations. There are co-workers to consider, and an East Coast Klavern legacy to dignify. And if your very best efforts only result in hucking a hanging meatball our way nobody is going to feel particularly satisfied:

Near-Suicidal Immigration Policies
By Victor Davis Hanson | National Review

Deportation has become a near-taboo word. Yet the Boston bombings inevitably rekindle old questions about the way the U.S. admits, and at times deports, foreign nationals.

Despite the Obama administration’s politically driven and cyclical claims of deporting either a lot more or a lot fewer non-citizens, no one knows how many are really being sent home — for a variety of reasons.

Oh yes, that’s the photo above the column. No it isn’t really that size – it’s much bigger. Hanson also asked the graphics department to render Tsarneav’s nose so that it nudged old dowagers in the asscrack as they doddered by, but “3-D” isn’t yet so sophisticated.

Say Victor? This is what you’re going with? No one knows how many Boogaloos get deported from the United States? Eek! I myself bothered to look into that horror, briefly. Turns out the deporting parties be the government who, wow, keep tabs on such things.

Although President Obama supports setting a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants, his administration deported a record 1.5 million of them in his first term.

In addition, the released by the government in recent days show that an unprecedented 409,849 people were deported for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

Zoot obscures! Numbers and all.

All-time highs. Damn. After you began so promisingly with the Menacing Terrorist.

And how does one define deportation? If someone from Latin America is detained by authorities an hour after illegally crossing the border and sent back, does he count as “apprehended” or “deported”?

Just what does “deport” mean? At what point does it apply? This is the sophistication a game of Jenga would rise to if it were played with shims.

If a terrorist climbs over a border fence and lands in Arizona, I’d say he’s in America. If you’d like to send him home, the word is appropriate: He’ll be “deported.” K? This, btw, typically occurs only after he’s been “apprehended.” But feel free to fly him back to Jalisco employing a helicopter and a grappling hook if that’s your thing.

President Obama’s own aunt, Zeituni Onyango, not only broke immigration law by overstaying her tourist visa but also compounded that violation by illegally receiving state assistance as a resident of public housing. Only after Obama was elected president was his aunt finally granted political asylum on the grounds that she would be unsafe in her native Kenya.

Right about here I assume Hanson spits on the ground. Ptaw. So she’s likely to get kidnapped, and ransomed, for nothing, and then killed as a result of some meaningless far-flung family association, but are those reasons to rescue her? She tried to stay in America. She went and lived in public housing. What is wrong with you people?

December 10, 2012, a date which live in infamy, the state of Colorado was attacked by marijuana. Legally.

Denver television station CBS4 reports that Colorado has seen a sharp spike in marijuana use among teenagers since voters passed Amendment 64 last November, legalizing recreational use of the drug.

You don’t say. Damn right you don’t say. Because CBS4 reported the allegations of one drug testing company. Operating in one county. Primarily in a single school district. But the station failed to report that such a company had reasons to make you think your fifteen year old was higher than Dennis Rodman at a war crimes tribunal. This is what’s commonly and comically known as “local reporting.” Or “public relations.”

But let’s not get bogged down in journalism, shall we? Let’s just recognize that the National Review is the source of such reefer moralizing, which is comically known as “Dennis Prager.” It’s been 92 long days since Amendment 64 went into effect — did I mention only 21 year-olds can legally possess? — and the children of Colorado have all but gone extinct:

According to the CBS4 report, based in part on data from a local drug-testing lab: “Experts say the test results show that children are getting higher than ever with alarming levels of THC, marijuana’s active ingredient, in their bodies.”

The massive increase in both the number of users and the amount of marijuana used by young people is precisely what I and many others predicted.

As usual Dennis was way ahead of you. He already knew what the yahoos of urine would claim about El Paso County teenagers, for example. But don’t you assume he’s your typical narcissist when he’s also dangerously, maddeningly dumb:

Equally foolish is that as a society we have made peace with marijuana while making war on tobacco. This has been a classic example of upside-down thinking; and we are reaping exactly what we have sown.

We can only smoke one drug, America. Time to choose.

First, tobacco doesn’t kill young people. When it kills, it generally kills much older adult people. Moreover, according to a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, if you stop smoking cigarettes by age 44, you will lose only one more year of life than a person who has never smoked.

Don’t know about you but I can hardly wait to try this, uh, tobacco. Tell me more.

Second, regular pot smokers increasingly tune out of life, becoming what are known as potheads, or, to put it bluntly, losers.

Where cigarette smokers become professional athletes, cancer researchers, and corpses.

If this is not obvious, ponder these questions: Would you rather your airplane pilot smoke pot or tobacco while flying? How would Britain have fared in World War II if Winston Churchill had smoked pot instead of cigars?

My what fascinating questions. What if 6-pack-a-day addict John Wayne came back from the grave? What would he smoke? After the years of nausea and pain, I’m betting he goes for the cannabis first. Then he squeezes Dennis into Bill Buckley’s oxygen tank.

The Harlem Shake may have taken the world’s dance clubs and secondary school gyms by storm, but you want a real challenge? Try doing the National Review.

Step One: Roll your eyes.

So now there’s a name and, inevitably, an acronym for it: military-sexual-trauma syndrome or MST . .

Step Two: Wag your finger.

Some of these women come from environments that made their descent into street life overdetermined, whether or not they experienced alleged sexual assault in the military. To blame alleged sexual assault for their fate rather than their own bad decision-making . .

Step Three: Make a wussy face.

I recently wrote about a tough-as-nails, pro-police building superintendent in the Bronx who was raped three times, including by her mother’s boyfriend as a child; she is only one case, obviously, but she was not on disability benefits or on the streets.

Step Four: Sleep soundly, somehow.

In the dismal aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings (and while death hangs in the air isn’t it fun to read what wingnuts think?), look who has put their heads together and come up with “Newtown Answers.” Nobody. But some folks less than sane and more than arrogant updated their website, so we’re left with the National Review.

By way of an “NRO Symposium” — traditionally a shipboard shrimp eating contest suspended mid-way to pry Pantload’s half-eaten hand from his gob — the Review staff claims it has solved American spree-killing. So this will be all wrong. I’ve gotten as far as the first ‘Answer,’ and here it is from Charlotte Allen:

There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees. Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers . . in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm.

There go two problems. Women and children. You can’t count on them to offer better than kindness, caring and love when faced with a mass murderer. Let’s remember that Adam Lanza is on his way because killers are always on their way as this is America [someone might wanna take a look at this place --ed.]. You can get some chimpanzee chaperones, or you can fight back:

There are things you can do. Run is one of them, because most shooters can’t hit a moving target. The other, if you are in a confined space, is throw things at the killer, or try a tackle.

Throw a crayon at Adam. Or a kite if it’s handy. Then after taking 49 headshots, tell yourself “Oooh Mr. Adam. What a tackle I’ll give you.” And then you give him everything you’ve got.

Earlier this week at The Corner:

In his opening monologue last night on Saturday Night Live, host Jamie Foxx joked that President Obama would be “extra black” in his second term. He went on to tell the audience that “I get to kill white people” in his upcoming film Django Unchained, and asked, “How great is that?”

There you have it, an entire post. 51 words. The late-night monologue was something the preeminent conservative intellectual website felt noteworthy. Oddly, they wouldn’t tell anybody why.

Don’t worry, their readers got the point. Comedy is weighty stuff.

The suicide cult we call the American left laps this stuff up because they think it makes them the height of cleverness and sophistication. After all, all the cool kids want to shed this mortal coil. What better way to end it all than to have a noble black man take you out in a race tinged rage?

I hate myself. Can Jamie kill me?

So any of the leftists here actually want to defend saying it’s great to kill white people? And that at the same time it’s bad for a white person to say it’s great to kill black people? The one is a “joke” right, the other hate speech?

By the way, Romney actually got, I believe, a slim majority of white voters under thirty. Maybe those are some of the whites Jamie Foxx would like to kill?

Jamie wants to kill you too.

Yes, when black people do it, that’s different, because white people “deserve it”.

Apparently presumed innocent and the right to a fair trial is something the left does not understand. Groups can be guilty of things based on what individuals within similar groups (except a hundred years ago) did – and never mind that Jamie Foxx is more likely to be descended from a slave owner than most whites, who are more likely descended from Ellis Island immigrants who got here forty or sixty years after slavery ended. Never mind that the logic doesn’t even tally up; it’s still fun to kill – not “slaveowners” but “whites”.

If you don’t think “whites” deserve killing, then the joke is not funny.

Jamie thinks you should die.

Fourteen years ago, my white child was bullied by black kids.

I pulled out a copy of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Had A Dream” speech and lectured my kid about not making generalizations.

I expect my good-faith efforts to be reciprocated. If you want a world where we are judged “not by the color of our skin”, then stop justifying this sort of behavior. It’s hateful and it’s unacceptable, and so are people who think it’s ok.

Why can’t Jamie love you?

It’s crunch time for gender-segregated marriage. There are two down in the bottom of the fourth quarter, and the chukker’s got a busted knee. Given the pouring rain, the tenth frame looks just as bad. The manager makes a call to the penalty box: free kick. Out trots the prom queen . . swinging a dildo? As if united in desperation, the fans cry out: Where is the National Review?

On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear arguments in two cases that are at the center of the same-sex-marriage controversy.

Whew.

At issue in both cases is whether courts should even be hearing them, because there are knotty questions of standing (and also of what should happen to lower-court rulings if the Court rules that parties did not have standing). If the Court does reach the merits in these cases, it should find its way toward a defense of the right of republican self-government.

States’ rights? Good! Let’s go with that. It should be up to the states to decide. Then we can pretend that the Defense of Marriage Act had nothing to do with us trying to strangle same-sex marriage from Washington D.C. Unchain the states! That’s what conservatism is all about. More:

Of the various arguments advanced for a constitutional “right” of same-sex marriage, none withstands even momentary scrutiny by accepted standards.

Please wait until the arguments have come to a complete thud before exiting the post. And thank you for flying with National Review. Hum buh-bye. Buh-bye. Buh-bye. Buh-bye.

Are gays and lesbians a powerless and oppressed minority?

Wait! How can gays possibly have this constitutional “right” . .

One can hardly say that after the November elections, in which the cause of same-sex marriage was victorious in four states, in a year when it was also embraced by the president of the United States and enshrined in the platform of the larger of our major parties.

. . when they’re not black Southerners in the sixties? If I remember correctly, it was only after the Supreme Court ruled “The powerless and battered Citizens of Montgomery ipso facto have the constitutional right to whine” that *poof* black people first appeared before the rest of us. That’s when they joined the Democratic Party, and everybody was like “WHO THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE?”

Is it rationally indefensible to reserve the institution of marriage to the only kind of union — one man and one woman — that is capable of procreation, and to the kind of union that is proven to be the best general setting for the rearing of children?

That last argument is particularly dumb. But to the previous one — ‘procreation’ — gay marriage itself has blown that out of the water. The gay marrieds don’t and technically can’t procreate but there they are. As married as anyone else.

My sister and her boyfriend got hitched and they adopted two children. They are not fake-way ‘gay’ married. They’re married. Even the National Review agrees. Must we list all the reasons people do this?

BTW — someday Science will learn how to manipulate a sperm sample so as to swap the donor’s chromosomes with a woman’s. Then Hunky Lesbo with an expensive strap-on will impregnate Lacy Lesbo and God Help Us All. They’ll have a baby girl. I’m not guessing about this, I’m a actual molecular biologist. Ha!

Is there anything that whines more gratingly than a Mark Steyn? He is the annoying power tool. You’d think the man had been bashed in a Rangoon prison or something, and now he’s wildly out of balance, chattering and over-heated. So disappointed. Thanks very much for the state of things. Not even the ants can manage properly, what a nauseating display. Then there’s you, could you be any dumber? (idiot.)

Mitt Romney lost the election. (jerks.) Can you believe how it happened? (Salvadorans.) What a stupendous country we’re living in, huh? (Mozambique.)

Tribal America

To an immigrant such as myself (not the undocumented kind, but documented up to the hilt, alas), one of the most striking features of election-night analysis was the lightly worn racial obsession. On Fox News, Democrat Kirsten Powers argued that Republicans needed to deal with the reality that America is becoming what she called a “brown country.” Her fellow Democrat Bob Beckel observed on several occasions that if the share of the “white vote” was held down below 73 percent Romney would lose.

As if these racial hugs weren’t bad enough. This was Fox News! Behaving like a melange artisan down at DeAundray’s Halal Shack. Good lord. But I’m no bigot, he whispered.

In the end, it was 72 percent and he did. Beckel’s assertion — that if you knew the ethnic composition of the electorate you also knew the result — turned out to be correct.

This is what less enlightened societies call tribalism . .

You’re Bushmen of the Kalahari, I tells ya. This is what clueless people do, lob ‘tribalism’ at things that disappoint. Not racist! The browns are predictable as fuck, and predictability is for insects. You ethnic-voted for the black fool so Romney lost. Take a bow or a rumba or whatever.

That same year America held an election, and Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory. Nobody talked about tribal-vote shares back then, but had the percentage of what Beckel calls the “white vote” been the same in 2012 as it was in 1980 (88 percent), Mitt Romney would have won in an even bigger landslide than Reagan.

Back when America was great, 88 percent of the voters were white and Ronald Reagan was king. Just saying! You get the point, though. White people vote for whites because of political intelligence, national identity and a none-too-disagreeable dash of élan. But now — have you seen California?

If one were informed that, say, the population of Nigeria had gone from 80 percent black in 1970 to 40 percent black today, one would suspect something rather odd and unnatural had been going on. Twenty years ago, Rwanda was about 14 percent Tutsi. Now it’s just under 10 percent. So it takes a bunch of Hutu butchers getting out their machetes and engaging in seven-figure genocide to lower the Tutsi population by a third. But, when the white population of California falls by half, that’s “natural,” just the way it is, one of those things, could happen to anyone.

White people are being harvested. It’s true! From the next few paragraphs: Habsburgs, Romanovs, Balkans, Western Hemisphere, Anglo-Celts, Hallmark Cinco de Mayo card, Latin American society, Jason DeParle, the aura of Central America, laundromats, money-transfer stores, jobless men, drink and sleep in the sun, no city government, little community. (utopia.)

Bleh bleh my final point: Or as Peggy Lee sang long ago in a lost land, “Mañana is soon enough for me.” And ‘Adios,’ suckers.

Feminist activist and sometime editor at National Review Rich Lowry fully wondered if he’d have to burn his laminated Nineteenth Amendment card. Then he figured he could make his disgust with Barack Obama public by other means. With “The President’s Insulting Campaign,” I think he’s gotten Gloria Steinem’s attention, among others:

It is a mercy that the suffragettes aren’t around to see President Barack Obama’s campaign for the women’s vote. It would make them weep in dismay.

Elizabeth “Cotton Candy” Cady Stanton famously wept whenever men were boors. Incarnated nowadays, doubtless she’d drown herself. So it’s a good thing she kicked around in a more respectful era, female-wise. God knows where all the suffragettes would have ended up if presidents had brutishly pandered to their whims this way, probably hauling rickshaws in America’s chinatowns. The Lilly Ledbetter act also enslaves employers and more but there’s no time as Rich is off to the equal pay march.

The former uniter is now a divider hoping enough women buy his insipid pitch. Let’s be glad that Susan B. Anthony and the gals are spared the spectacle.

We hope the gals are dead or at least good sports.

National Review makes an argument for “The Rapper Barons” to vote Republican. But let’s see what’s playing on the National Geographic Channel.

“. . Minaj is a sort of extra-dimensional pop bombshell whose sartorial combinations can be viewed only at a distance and only with specially designed goggles. Underneath the hot-pink wigs and Day-Glo lipstick is a 29-year-old Afro-Trinidadian by way of Manhattan’s LaGuardia High School who, after an Augie March–esque series of failed stints at chain restaurants and call centers and an abortive off-Broadway acting career, was plucked from New York’s underground hip-hop scene in 2007 by the CEO of one Dirty Money Entertainment. Nota bene: Dirty Money Entertainment is not to be confused with Young Money Entertainment, which eventually signed Minaj in 2009, or with Cash Money Records, which is Young Money’s parent label.”

After National Review’s lumbering ginger bitch, Mark Steyn, wrote a pissy post about Sandra Fluke, I criticized him. Here he was:

. . she has concluded that the most urgent need facing the Brokest Nation in History is for someone else to pay for the contraception of 30-year-old children.

Sandra never “concluded” that. But this is about contraception, so she’s a child. Don’t you know anything about the national debt? That’s adult stuff.

Anyway, Steyn read the post –

More fan mail re: #SandraFluke column: thumpandwhip.com/2012/09/08/mar…

— Mark Steyn (@MarkSteynOnline) September 9, 2012

. . and now I’ve got a thousand ginger twats saying I’m stupid.

Abortion and contraception are the only technology we have to manage pregnancy? The ONLY TECHNOLOGY we have to manage pregnancy?? We have no other sort of technology related to pregnancy at all in this world? So “managing” pregnancy means nothing but preventing or ending it?

Once you’re accidentally pregnant, the technologies are pretty lame. Don’t you think? There’s a morning-after pill, I suppose, but that’s cold homicide buddy.

Way to take something out of context. Mark’s point was that contraception is not the job of a federal government. If Sandra cannot afford the $4 pill then maybe should try the old tried and true “just say no” approach to birth control

Way to take something out of context. Sandra was talking about Georgetown’s healthcare plan. It costs students $1800 a year, but it won’t cover birth control. Even though it would likely save the plan money. Strange, don’t you think?

Back in days of yore they used that outdated model of keeping penises out of their vaginas but what is a middle aged student about to start a career in her mid-30′s supposed to do today?

Back then things were smarter. We used to lobotomize certain people. We used to drown others. We used to hang other others.

Your arguement is incoherent at best and again as other posters have mentioned proves the point that liberals want daddy government to protect and care for them cradle to grave.

Oh, youe . .

1.) “Please Mark instruct us. Tell us educated people what we should do with our lives.”

Now there’s irony for ya…

2.) “Tell us educated people”

Based on the quality of your writing and the coherency of your argument, I’m not sure “us” is an appropriate word choice there.

Subjectivists. Ouch my tuxedo ears. I could have pleased the crowd with a “we,” but then I’d be a fool. Wouldn’t I? This is so National Review, it’s pitch perfect.

The only coherent thought in this article is when she quotes Mark. I fear that this is written by another college uneducated 30 year old…

Hey! I’m a dood dammit.

First I must comment on how incoherent this commentary was. It made little sense, and the maligning of the English language indicates someone who learned English from rap albums. Second your point about contraception, well let’s jaunt over to the more enlightened Europe, where the evil white, christian( sorry too few of those), yuppies are barely reproducing at all, as in the case of the vampire sex is merely healthy excersise, and reproduction is strictly for the realm of the living.

Heeeeeee’s Mr. Coherent, doot-do-dooo. Yikes. Somebody call filmmaker Martin Excersise, there’s a Euro-vampire treatment he’s gotta read.

Steyn is addressing his comments to rational adults. That’s why you missing the point.

I not miss point! I get point! Very good point!

How far you’ve fallen if the greatness of a man is to be measured by his enemies.

You came all the way to my blog to say this. Telling. Anyway, thank you Steyn ye ginger bitch for sending me your dullards. This was entertaining graffiti. And now, some hot dogs.

Nate Silver forecasts that Barack ‘recession’ Obama has a nearly 80% chance of winning on November sixth. For some this is an astounding situation. How the hell did we get here? Andrew McCarthy at National Review dares to answer:

We have lost a third of the country and, as if that weren’t bad enough, Republicans act as if it were two-thirds.

The lost third cannot be recovered overnight. For now, it is gone. You cannot cede the campus and the culture to the progressive, post-American Left for two generations and expect a different outcome.

We now ‘own’ that third. Did you know? Me neither.

The people coming of age in our country today have been reared very differently from those who were just beginning to take the wheel in the early 1980s. They have marinated in an unapologetically progressive system that prizes group discipline and narrative over free will and critical thought.

It is to larf. Here comes Andy’s imperious leader, today, with his critical thoughts:

Romney began a campaign appearance in Virginia Beach, Va. on Saturday by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance before turning to the platform controversy.

“That pledge says “under God,” and I will not take God out of our platform,” Romney said to cheers. “I will not take God off our coins, and I will not take God out of my heart.”

How’s that for razor logic? God on your pennies! Back to Andy:

In the progressive weltanschauung, good and evil are relative. Good is whatever it is said to be in the moment . . We no longer know whether it’s wrong — only that, whoever may have done it, it’s our fault.

Andy seems to have lost the thread, about winning. (Do you yourself know right from wrong? Yeah, me too.) And therein lies your answer. The reality about Republicans being losers is that they’re silly. They’re pre-occupied with the arcane. Obsessed with things that don’t matter. Their heads wedged up their asses. What “critical thought” is there in denying gays from marrying? None.