Le grand embarras

New Jersey Institute of Technology?!? WTF

Whistle of Death

BOO!

“ Tommy Lee Smith found this  Aztec Death Whistle video.  Trilby McTip commented on site,  "I make a similar sound when my Mom forgets to restock the Doritos."  War chants are meant to impose psychological terror on your enemy; it would tighten my sphincter.   One of the best of this ilk is this Zulu war chant from the  1964 film  "Zulu" (which  is still a 5 star  watch). Neither, however, can compete with the Shriek of the Harpy for full heart-stopping horror. ”

Santorum Was Right

“ “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.” –Bob Hope Swany—how I love ya, how I love ya My dear old Swany Shortly after the odious Lawrence v. Texas decision in which the US Supreme Court, in a grim foreshadowing of the short shrift it has given the desecration of the concept of marriage, decided to toss a couple of millenia of Western Civilization so no one’s libido would be restrained by law, Rick Santorum gave an interview with Associated Press: And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. [...] This [decison] is, quite honestly, the kind of figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin that got us into this mess. I don’t intend to argue “relativism” here, other to point out that to the average reader of English this looks a helluva lot like it and I suspect Linker rejects tying relativism to bestiality because of his own philosophical and political biases. The way we have fetishized “tolerance” and “affirmation” and linked it to sexual perversion guarantees very few are going to like where this trip ends. And if we aren’t headed for Gomorrah, you will certainly be able to see it from where we are bound. Back to Rick Santorum. When the Supreme Court ruled that a state had no right to regulate sexual behavior, presumably because the same “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution that decided Griswold now protected butt-sex it didn’t take a genius to see where this was going to end but the left and libertarians had to make fun of Santorum because he gave away their game. Now we are here and there is no way to arrest the momentum. Illustration: Leda and the Swan by Jules Roulleau. Speaking just for myself—this is one tough subject for anyone with "gay" male friends/family members (lesbianism isn't in my calculus here), whom you love unconditionally, to deal with.  However—and cutting to the chase—I see pancreatic cancer scale damage done when the courts regulate sexual behavior.  Yes, Griswaldish rulings will provide legal protection for, erm, extraordinary behavior, but at what cost?  Does a good field commander refuse to sacrifice a platoon in order to save the company?  They do here. And what happened to "doing your thing" quietly, and without the parade?  What's that?  You say, Georgia might prosecute you if  push comes to shove (no pun intended)?  Then move somewhere more tolerant to your situation, and STFU.  And for chrissake, don't lose your sense of humor about the human condition. Santorum had it right, which wasn't hard because it's common sense. I suspect we all innately knew what was coming. Aside, My 300,970  word original post is available if there is enough demand. ”

5 of 32 Things

The 32 Dumbest Things That Happened In 2014 “ "Why the fuck should I go to someone's funeral if they aren't going to mine?" FIVE CONTENDERS OMFG ”

Fit to a Tee

art is everywhere

More Stuff We Can't Do

Boner's Vichy Soup

vichyssoishy gummint

Horowitz Letter to GOP

“

MUST READ: An Open Letter to Republicans in Washington

”

When Liberals Are Losing ...

a major award

“ SCOTT WALKER Wisconsin Ranger Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is a sheriff who's been called-out by the bad guys so many times it's a wonder he's still walking.  But he is, and the floor is littered with dead union thugs who tried to kill him.  What we have here then, from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,  is the familiar Liberal contrivance of offering advice to the guy who's just kicked your ass. Is Wisconsin better off with weaker unions? Some conservatives think so. Legislators will consider the question when right-to-work legislation is introduced early next year. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said members in his house would begin debate within weeks. But I think Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican leadership should tread carefully. There is scant evidence that right-to-work laws boost job creation; there is evidence that weaker unions hurt working people. And there is no doubt whatsoever that a fight over right to work in Wisconsin will be bloody. Remember Act 10? Under right-to-work laws, workers in unionized shops cannot be required to pay dues as a condition of employment. That creates a "free rider" problem for unions as workers calculate that they can benefit from representation without paying for it. As a result, unions have a harder time organizing and less clout. Twenty-four states have some form of right to work including Michigan and Indiana. Walker says right-to-work is not a priority but he hasn't said whether he would sign a bill if one reaches his desk. If a bill gets to Walker, I don't think there is any question what he will do. He will sign it. Conservatives have long argued that workers should be free from the coercion that comes from forced union dues, and they believe that right-to-work gives workers more choices. I understand their arguments. Years ago, I was approached to organize the newsroom where I was working at the time by a rep from the typographers union. I declined. As a young reporter, I wanted the freedom to work as many hours as I needed to learn the craft and felt the union might limit my ability to do that. But that said, I don't think workplace freedom is the real objective here. This is about weakening unions. James Sherk of The Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank, wrote in a 2011 paper that right to work "makes unions less aggressive and encourages business investment, creating jobs." Does it really encourage job growth?  (OMFG, YES).  (Continued) ”

Every mother must fear ....

Liberal Plantation                                                             Photoshopped? I don't think so Lucy “ My photochopper eyes suggest that this is no 'shop.  What I've learned from this whole Ferguson deal is there are great numbers of Black Americans who feel the way Frederick Wilson II  (also from Metzger) does, and are finding a voice.  How ironic if this Helter Skelter fueled event is responsible for finally awakening the Black community to how they've been manipulated by the Democrat Party? ”

Mohammad's Giant Penis

ISIS's latest killing machine: 10-foot sniper rifle that can  fire bullets three times the size of a normal gun

“ The fearsome weapon is thought to fire 23mm calibre bullets 'Gun could be effective against lightly armoured vehicles,' says expert Cuzzin Ricky writes, "How accurate could it be at long distances?  No scope....." I'll leave analysis to experts like Kim, but one must fear that the Islamos have found Gerald Bull's secret diary. As for the scope, yes!  A glaring short fall.   At the risk of being, like Bull, targeted by the Mossad, I've solved  that problem in the rollover. Don't worry, this is a secure site, so there's no way the ISISes can use my idea. Isis terrorist photographed aiming a 10-foot rifle out of a window Muhammed's Giant Penis What sort of effect this gun would have remains open to debate, however, according to firearms expert David Dyson. He told MailOnline: 'The problem with identifying the effect of this gun is firstly that we don't know for sure what the calibre is, although there wouldn't be a lot of point in building something like this if it wasn't of a significant calibre. Secondly, and probably of more importance, we don't know how well it is made: is the barrel accurately machined and rifled? 'The effect will also depend on the type of ammunition used. These rounds exist [23mm] fitted with high explosive incendiary or armour piercing incendiary projectiles.They will be effective against personnel and vehicles including lightly armoured ones.' The picture emerged after a show of force from al Qaeda's Nusra Front, a rival group. They toured in a convoy around villages they said they had captured from Syrian rebels. Dozens of pick-up trucks bristling with anti-aircraft guns and men armed with heavy machine guns drove through settlements in the southern countryside of Idlib. Read more: ”

Trey Gowdy - '"Let McCain Do It."

“

Trey Gowdy - '"Let McCain Do It." Now this is just pathetic Some of you turned Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) into the hero of the day because of his Benghazi investigation. He could do no wrong. What happens when you build a cult of personalty around any politician is then they can go BOHICA on you. On Fox News yesterday, Gowdy was asked about President Obama’s plan. He said the President had no authority. Asked again by Fox News’s Bill Hemmer, Gowdy was insistent the President could not do what he did and had to treat congress as a co-equal branch of government. So, Hemmer asked Gowdy who he’d stop the President. Gowdy’s answer? He wants to let Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) handle it by tying up unrelated Presidential nominations in the Senate. Yeah. Mind you, the Senate Republicans are not going to restore the filibuster on nominations, so that’s now impossible if one of the squishes won’t go along. There you have it. The great white hope of Benghazi, now that he thinks conservatives are in his pocket, will stand with the Speaker, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Barack Obama against the American public on amnesty. He wants Sen. John McCain to stop Obama. I have no doubt, now being exposed, Gowdy will claim he is personally going to oppose the continuing resolution. But he’s going to support the rule, which will enable Boehner and Pelosi to get it passed without Gowdy. [RED STATE] I hadn't heard that Senate Republicans won't restore the filibuster on nominations that Harry Reid did away with.  What's your argument either way? First, consider this.

”

'Member This?

"If you're trying to change minds and influence people it's probably not a good idea to say that virtually all elected Democrats are liars, but what the hell." TRKOF

From Metzger, which reminds me; Congrats Ron!

Fightin' Tom Harkin's Buh-Bye

Outgoing Progressive Sen. and fake war hero Tom Harkin is another Democrat with buyer's remorse for Obamacare.  No, not because it was an idea that America hates, didn't want, and a major reason why Democrats got their asses kicked last month, and whose seat will be filled by conservative Joni Ernst.  Harkin regrets not doing more to demolish the health-insurance industry, says Ed Morrissey. Harkin says in retrospect the Democratic-controlled Senate and House should have enacted a single-payer healthcare system or a public option to give the uninsured access to government-run health plans that compete with private insurance companies. “We had the votes in ’09. We had a huge majority in the House, we had 60 votes in the Senate,” he said. He believes Congress should have enacted “single-payer right from the get go or at least put a public option would have simplified a lot.” Progressive Theater of the Absurd Present Production

MONA!

The Man Who Stole The Mona Lisa art is everywhere

“ I watched The Man Who Stole The Mona Lisa  on Netflix Sunday night and was going to recommend it, when lo!  Here it is on You Tube.  When Italian handyman Vincenzo Peruggia stole the Mona Lisa from the Louvre in 1911, he never could have guessed her absence would be the very thing that made her the most recognizable painting on the planet. (CNN) Suddenly images of the artwork were splashed across international newspapers, as the two-year police hunt hit dead-end after dead-end. While the Mona was well known, it was far from being as recognizable as it is today; the Washington Post for instance printed this picture. It wasn't until December 1913 -- exactly 100 years ago next month -- that Peruggia was finally caught and the Mona Lisa recovered, becoming the best known painting in a time before we shared images on TV, internet, and phones. Odds that you'll like this movie are 81:3.  You're welcome. BONUS ”

Tired Gay Story

“

THIS JUST IN $

”

Fits My Mood Today

TWO THINGS

Go out and play dammit!

Boys Will Be Boys

I imagine my thoughts here are identical to my grandparent's worries about television  And they were right.

The Founding Fathers were clear about ...

you know who you are                                                                           A Constitutional Moment

“ A Constitutional Moment Seth Lipsky  Nov. 20, 2014     The Founding Fathers were clear about who sets immigration policy The coming clash between President Obama and Congress over immigration promises to light up what I like to call a constitutional moment. This is a moment in which our politics are so divided that we have scraped away the soil of legislation and are fighting on American bedrock. Rarely has it shone more clearly than in respect of who has the power to decide who can come here and be naturalized as a citizen. Nor, the record suggests, did they want the President setting policies on immigration and naturalization. There may be talk about Obama having presidential “discretion” in enforcing immigration laws, but the record of the Constitutional Convention makes clear where the founders wanted discretion to lie. “The right of determining the rule of naturalization will then leave a discretion to the legislature,” James Madison quotes Alexander Hamilton as saying. This is one of the reasons we seceded from Great Britain. King George III had been interfering with immigration to the colonies. It was one of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. The British tyrant, the Americans declared, had endeavored “to prevent the Population of these States.” For that purpose, they said, George III had been not only “obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners” but also “refusing” laws “to encourage their Migrations hither.” The articles of confederation that first bound the newly independent states failed to solve this problem. Each state set its own policy on naturalization, with the potential for chaos. Hence the founders, who gathered in 1787 in Philadelphia to write the Constitution, granted to Congress the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” They could have granted this to the President or left it to the states, but they assigned it instead to Congress. So Obama, in threatening to act on his own, is playing with constitutional fire. It’s not that I object to his liberality on immigration. On the contrary, for years I was part of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. It reckons that it would be illogical to stand for the free movement of trade and capital absent the free movement of labor. It once called for a constitutional amendment saying “there shall be open borders.” That is based on the idea of human capital, the notion that in a system of democratic capitalism people have an incentive to produce more than they themselves consume. This system discovers that more people lead to a richer society for all. In my generation, this point animated the campaign for America to take in the boat people escaping Vietnam after the communist conquest. What a windfall they turned out to be. I have also long plumped for a merger of pro-immigration activists and pro-life conservatives. A movement that cherishes pro-life principles contradicts itself when it emerges against immigration. Better to press consistently for the idea that more people are better, particularly in a country as underpopulated as the U.S., which ranks near the bottom of the world’s nations in population density. All that, though, is trumped by the constitution. It not only seats naturalization power in Congress but also gives it almost total sway. The founders discussed adding language relating to how long someone must reside in America before becoming a citizen. In the end they required of Congress only that its rule be “uniform.” They didn’t want the states feuding over this and setting competing policies. They wanted a united front to the world. Nor, the record suggests, did they want the President setting policies on immigration and naturalization. There may be talk about Obama having presidential “discretion” in enforcing immigration laws, but the record of the Constitutional Convention makes clear where the founders wanted discretion to lie. “The right of determining the rule of naturalization will then leave a discretion to the legislature,” James Madison quotes Alexander Hamilton as saying. Madison followed by remarking that he “wished to maintain the character of liberality” that had been “professed” throughout the states. He was not for open immigration. He “wished to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us.” He noted that “America was indebted to emigration for her settlement and prosperity” and added, “That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture, and the arts.” The Founding Fathers were not naive. They worried plenty about intrigue by what Madison, at one point, called “men with foreign predilections” who might “obtain appointments” or even seek public office. One can imagine that they would be horrified by the loss of control of the southern border, the lawlessness, the abuse of welfare and the scent of rebellion north of the Rio Grande. But the founders also feared a King–or a President who acted like one. They wanted the question of immigration settled by Congress and wrote an impeachment clause that glints in the fray. Lipsky is the editor of the New York Sun SOURCE: The Writings of James Madison, Volume IV That Time Magazine would print Lipsky's (editor of the New York Sun) treatise  means that at least one reliably leftist publication is impressed. ”

Court Boners

—  You Clot

“ Great Trial Boners During a trial practice Ted's lawyer tested the defense's contention that Ted was on the jogging trail that morning, still under the influence of Cialis which he'd taken the day before, and for which continued condition was going to call his physician when he got back to the office, when, because of weight loss, his jogging shorts fell down to his ankles, tripping and propelling him into Ms. Foster whose own jogging shorts had quite coincidentally also fallen to her ankles where she, being quite without undergarments, was bent over, frantically screeching, while pulling them up. Later, Ted took a plea deal on sexual assault instead of facing a rape trial. ”

Bombs Over Tokyo, etc.

WAR

I've touched on this before, but I'm rankled again. In our nation's history, approx14,300,000 Americans have served during wartime, with approx 2,800,000 of them being killed or wounded.  I was a student at UM when Jack Kennedy announced on television details of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Three of us jumped into my car and drove to Baltimore to enlist.  Just like that.  Alas, recruiting stations were closed at 9 PM,  so we went to the Block and saw some strippers instead, but the point is made.  I imagine that over the years quite a few Americans  felt the same call to action.  That's raw patriotism.   Not all ran to enlist at first bugle of course.  My own father, and step father, were both drafted.  Dad took a Nazi mortar shell directly; my step dad a sniper's bullet, but he survived.  I think if you asked all 14 million who served in wartime why they were fighting, all would have answered,  in some fashion, "to protect our country from the rat bastards trying to destroy it."  That includes both armies in the War of Rebellion, rat bastards being a relative thing.  If you further asked them to be more specific, the answers could I think be distilled down "to protect our freedom."  For the past 50 years some Americans who share ideologies copacetic with what King George, the Kaiser, the Nazis, the Japs, the Communists, and radical Islamos had in mind for us (total subjugation)  have increasingly gained control of our ship of state's machinery.  There is not a lick of difference between today's Democrat Party and the Communist Party, USA of the 1950s.  None.  To wit: the CPUSA fielded a candidate in every U.S.  presidential election from 1925 until 1988—when they began just endorsing the Democrat candidate.  For the same reason then that I hate Communism, I hate today's elected Democrats, and the useful idiots who serve them.  They are deceitful and focused liars, the lot. And endorsed by the CPUSA. All to bring me to this point.  If you, like me, see us engaged in an ideological war for the very soul of the United States, then what, pray tell, are the differences between this struggle and being in a frozen foxhole in 1951 Korea?  Most everyone in this forum have already enlisted, and wear the uniform proudly.   Our common goal: Destroy the uniformed Obamunist enemy.  But, more hateful—in any war—are those who wear our uniform, infiltrate our lines, and  sabotage from within.  So heinous a crime that international rules of war allow the summarily execution of them when captured. The GOP’s War On Obama’s Executive Action Lasted About 5 Minutes Two Words.  Boehnor; Ilk    The greatest penalty, indeed a political death penalty for that lot, is being stripped of any leadership role by the GOP caucus.  And  replaced with those who understand that we are in a war for our survival. Boehnor must be replaced.  If the Republican caucus have a sense of duty, he will be, in January if not today.