Close Please enter your Username and Password

My Blog

Posted:Sep 22, 2017 12:43 pm
Last Updated:Sep 24, 2017 7:45 pm

Jimmy, I have been a fan for quite some time, back to when you co-hosted "The Man Show" with Adam Corolla. Who could forget the guy humor, the endless chugging of beer and the "girls on trampolines"? I liked your show on network TV. I was sympathetic when your girlfriend Sarah Silverman gobsmacked you on live TV with "I'm F****** Matt Damon." All of us were pulling for your son when he was born with a heart defect. But, but, but.....somewhere along the line you forgot that

You are an entertainer!

You are not the conscience of the nation. You are not the Grand Inquisitor. Your expertise on healthcare is probably no more than can fit on a cue card in your TV rants. You dropped out of 2 third-rate colleges, and now you are the Pope? I don't think so. Are you the only parent in the country whose child has had a life-threatening disease? Hell no -- their number is legion, and I am one of them.

Yes, your trendy studio audience in NYC will cheer you wildly no matter whom you bash with terms such as "inbred." But as some savant said,"I don't look to my politicians for comedy, or to my comedians for politics." This overstates the matter, as comedy and politics are sometimes inseparable in a free society. But your self-righteousness and virtue-signaling has gone way over the line.

Perhaps you should suspend your career as an extremely wealthy entertainer and run for the Senate. Why not? Al Franken has already demonstrated that "Send in the Clowns" is not just a Broadway tune.
Posted:Sep 19, 2017 9:55 pm
Last Updated:Sep 22, 2017 6:34 pm

Dinty mops the floor with Leaf and Lulu!

Leaf copied and pasted an incredibly fatuous Raw Story article yesterday professing horror because Alabama senatorial candidate Roy Moore said the following:

“Now we have blacks and whites fighting, reds and yellows fighting, Democrats and Republicans fighting, men and women fighting,” he said. “What’s going to unite us?”

"What an incredible goon..." concludes the graffiti artist from Hampton Roads.

Enter Dinty with exactly the right comment:

Ya, darn Christian's, all their fault. "Jesus loves the little children". Red and Yellow Black and White, they are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children.

What possible offense could be taken by the simple metonymy of substituting the color most associated with a race for the race itself? Only a mind poisoned by Leftist indoctrination. I wish I had thought to say it, but it wouldn't have mattered because Leaf is too cowardly to allow me to post on his blog.

But wait! There's more. Lulu piles on with this horribly shrill, irrelevant, and even ignorant comment:

That song was written back in the days of internment camps, segregation,
residential schools etc....surely no one sings that anymore.

Hang on, Lulu, Dinty takes you to school:

The tune was composed by George Frederic Root in 1864 as a civil war tune called Tramp Tramp Tramp the Boys are Marching. Around 1871 Clare Herbert Woolston an educator and composer noted for sacred and patriotic music, Inspired by Matthew 19:14, wrote the words to the tune as a religious song, hymn, prayer and nursery rhyme. The sentiments expressed in the lyrics are drawn from Scripture and reflect reality. It is one of the first songs children learn in Church and is still used today.

Dinty has it all exactly right. George F. Root was probably the most important composer the Union had in the Civil War. Woolston, a Baptist preacher in Philadelphia (Clare in this case was a man) was undoubtedly as inclusive and "diverse" and progressive as a guy in the 1870's was likely to be. His hymn, set to Root's jaunty tune, remains popular with kids of Sunday School age. It is very obviously a call for racial tolerance and the unity of all peoples.

Leaf, instead of saying "I stand corrected" shows his classlessness in his usual schmucky way.... he has no rebuttal other than to declare the other party stupid:

I cannot believe someone in 2017 would advance an argument as you have. It is incredibly stupid sir...good grief.

Congratulations, chumps.

Well done, Dinty.
Posted:Sep 17, 2017 8:06 pm
Last Updated:Sep 22, 2017 12:17 pm
This article by John Hawkins is a c & p from the site Townhall. It was too good not to share.

Have you heard about Hillary Clinton’s new book, What Happened?. She could have saved everyone time by just writing out a list called The 349 People, Places And Things Other Than Myself That I Blame My Failure On….. She lost because of Bernie Sanders. Because of white people. Because of “Bernie Bros,” sexism, and Russians. Because the press coverage wasn’t favorable enough. If you can come up with an excuse, she put it in the book somewhere.

At one point, while doing the publicity tour for this monstrosity, she actually said, “What makes me such a lightning rod for fury? I’m really asking. I’m at a loss.” So, as a public service to Hillary Clinton and the legions of her fans who seem to think she’s practically perfect (No, really. I’ve been listening to them for months on Twitter. It’s bizarre), I’ve put together this short, handy list explaining reasons why so many people hate Hillary Clinton that go beyond her socialistic political beliefs. Granted, there are many other things we could add from her horrible cackle to the fact she seems like the most scripted person on earth to her ridiculous lies (I landed under sniper fire in Bosnia) to the hypocritical way she treated the women her husband abused, but let’s just hit the high points, shall we?

#1) Her whole campaign could have been boiled down to “Vote for me because I’m a woman:” Being a woman isn’t a qualifier for being President. In and of itself, it’s not even a qualifier for being a Hooter’s waitress. The insulting assumption that she was owed votes because she’s female and that people who disliked her were automatically sexist was incredibly annoying, especially after eight years of being told that everyone who disagreed with Obama was a racist. In fact, Hillary can insultingly chalk it all up to sexism if she likes, but as my friend Amanda Carpenter said, “Hillary's problems with likability aren't problems shared by our whole gender no matter how much she wishes it so.”

#2) Hillary’s entire claim to fame is being married to Bill: If Tom Brady gets hurt tomorrow, your top choice to replace him as quarterback wouldn’t be his wife. Take Bill out of the equation and Hillary would have been lucky to have a career as a town councilwoman in Dung Heap, Arkansas. Say whatever you want about someone like Sarah Palin, but at least she earned her spot at the top and didn’t just glom on to the right man while shouting some variation of “Girl Power” every 5 minutes.

#3) She’s hopelessly corrupt: This is a woman who got away with taking bribes via cattle futures when her husband was in the Arkansas governor’s mansion, using her position as Secretary of State to do pay for play with the Clinton Foundation and offloading classified data onto an illegal, private server. We hear endless complaining from Hillary and her supporters about James Comey, but he started preparing to exonerate Clinton before the investigation was even over. That’s typical. I’d be in jail if I’d done 1/10 of what Hillary has done. So would you. So would any Republican, including Donald Trump. But, all of us have learned that Hillary will always get special treatment and it disgusts most people. You can talk about non-existent “white privilege” or any other type of privilege you want, but nothing will ever beat “Clinton privilege.”  

#4) She felt entitled to be President because of her last name: When the GOP primary cranked up, Jeb Bush was the presumptive nominee. He had amassed an enormous war chest; his last name was Bush and he didn’t really seem to care that much about what all the peasants who would be voting in the primaries thought. We all know how that worked out. Jeb got his clock cleaned. Well, Hillary was the Jeb candidate on the Left (except much less qualified) and the reaction to her was even more negative because her smug insistence that the presidency was hers based on her gender and last name was rewarded with the Democrat nomination.
#5) She’s simply not a very nice person: Conservatives remember when Hillary callously said, “I can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America,” when she was asked about her health care plan bankrupting small businesses. They didn’t miss it when she listed “Republicans” among her enemies at a Democrat debate. They recall her saying, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it.” It did not slip past them when Wikileaks leaked out this comment from John Podesta, “I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion.” They’ve seen the stories about her demanding “White House workers never speak to her and hide behind the drapes” when she came around. They heard her laugh while discussing getting a man who r*ped a 12 year old girl off easy. They saw the stories about the abusive way she treated the Secret Service agents who were ready to take a bullet to save her life. This is not someone you want to hang out with, have a beer with or be on the same planet with unless it’s absolutely necessary. 

BELOW: Hillary testifies to Congress

"i WILL BUILD A GREAT, GREAT WALL" .....well, maybe
Posted:Sep 16, 2017 8:25 pm
Last Updated:Sep 20, 2017 12:31 pm

President Trump has been dancing with the devil (i.e., the Democratic party, epitomized by Pelosi and Schumer), and as usual the devil is winning. The great dealmaker seems poised to lose the shirt off his back if he doesn't come to his senses.

At stake is the granting of amnesty to the so-called "dreamers," a romanticized descriptive (who wants to crush anyone's dream?) concocted by the Obama team, referring to illegal aliens who came here under the age of 18 "through no fault of their own." Unbelievably, Trump has sent signals that he wants to give amnesty to the "dreamers."

This is a slow-moving car wreck and it has all happened before. In 1986, Ronald Reagan le Grand supported a similar deal and the stogie blew up in his face. The editor of the conservative page of my local paper (Clint Cooper) summed it up nicely in an editorial entitled "Trump should take a look back." He begins as follows:

"In 1986, the Gipper was gotten.

We fear the same thing is about to happen to the Donald.

Thirty-one years ago, President Ronald Reagan signed a well-meaning bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, into law. It offered illegal immigrants who had been living in the United States continuously since 1982 a path to citizenship. To gain temporary status, they had to pay $185 and demonstrate "good moral character." After 18 months, if they had learned English, they could become eligible for green cards. In the end, some 2.7 million got them."

So, the Gipp got completely hornswoggled. What did he get for this? 2.7 million new Democratic voters. The border security measures coupled with it never happened:

"What the country was supposed to have gotten in return was new surveillance technology and a bigger staff to secure the Southern border. The bill also was to impose penalties on businesses that knowingly hired or employed illegal immigrants.
A funny thing happened on the way to the enforcement side of the deal, though. With Democrats controlling the House and regaining control of the Senate a year later, it never quite got done.

The penalties on businesses were essentially gutted in order to get tacit support from the business community, and Congress didn't provide enough money to increase the border staff until after Republicans gained control of Congress in the 1994 election. In the meantime, millions more illegal immigrants streamed into the country."

So here we are again. New stanza, different lyrics, same tune.

It is possible that the reports are misleading, or that Trump has thought better of his pas de trois with Chuck and Nancy. I certainly hope so, because this was Trump's first and most touted issue, and his supporters took him at his word. If he breaks faith, untold numbers of his most loyal supporters will stay home in the November 2018 election.

Say it ain't so, Donald.
Posted:Sep 15, 2017 11:50 am
Last Updated:Sep 20, 2017 6:16 pm

First you said you were bipolar, and apologized for acting peculiarly when off your meds. You said that "Daniel" was very good at making sure you took your meds.

Today you tell us this was just a lie, a hoax, and that "Daniel" supported this lie/hoax even though he is "moral to the nth degree." You believed this would get the "stinkin' Repubs" off your back. Nice talk from the former TrumpGal8. You forget that disliking you is non-partisan. Remember how CP and Maggie cut you off at the knees the last time you left the reservation? I doubt if you have any true political affiliation.

So which is it, are you a liar or a nutjob?

It's a tough choice, but I have a way to untie this Gordian knot. You are both!

Below, the blog from ND today:


Hey It Got The Stinkin Repubs Off My Back For Awhile
I told Daniel -He Is Moral To The Inth Degree And Felt
It Wasn't Right lol
But I Sure Enjoyed Everyone Tip Toe-Ing Around Me lol
So Easy To Do It
Geez You Dimwits Believe Everything Put Up On The
Internet lol
Watch Your Checkbook Seniors !!!!! [/COLOR
Posted:Sep 12, 2017 11:00 am
Last Updated:Sep 16, 2017 2:19 pm

What a cartoon of a human being is the person behind the Leaf monikers. He has zero empathy for real people, falsely signals virtue multiple times daily, and shows signs of social retardation and narcissism. He seems stuck in Freud's genital phase and is endlessly fascinated with penises and vaginas and other more infantile concerns like burping. (Perhaps Leaf's Mommy told him it was OK to utter these words but not their vernacular equivalents.) But the main problem is he has a cruel, fey, name-calling ugliness toward anyone who does not support his fantasy worldview.

And then ... there are those women who support him in his delusions and cruelty. Without presuming to know what Leaf's sexuality is (it seems either ambiguous or nonexistent), I suggest that Leaf's "female friends" are the equivalent of "fag hags." I imagine you are familiar with this term, but it refers to women (usually heterosexual themselves) who are threatened by the company of hetero men and prefer hanging with homosexual men. Homosexual men return their affection without being a threat. They also are more voluble in talking about emotional subjects and more given to amusing flaming. They are also valued because they enjoy mocking the alpha males the women dislike.

I suggest that Leaf form a rock group: Leafy and the Harpies

Posted:Sep 10, 2017 6:48 pm
Last Updated:Sep 13, 2017 2:39 pm
Whether you agree with Eric Bolling's politics or not, I hope you can spare a moment of compassion for his loss of son, Eric Jr., just a few hours after Bolling's Sr.'s dismissal from Fox News was made public. I am sure Bolling would rather have his son back than his job, but what a horrendous day.

Eric Jr. attended the University of Colorado-Boulder, and according to reports, his death was the result of a drug overdose. It is unclear whether or not it was intentional. By all accounts, he was a fine young man, and his death is enough to make your heart bleed in sympathy.

From my perspective I find it peculiar that the Bollings decided on Colorado-Boulder for Jr.'s undergraduate education. Boulder is one of those bright blue daubs of political paint in red "flyover" America, and the school is famously (or notoriously) liberal. It is certainly not alone -- America's college towns are very frequently liberal enclaves even in red states,, as in Austin, TX, Madison, Wisconsin, and the Research Triangle in North Carolina. It could not have been easy for Eric Jr. to live among a community which despised his father and his politics. To make matters worse, Eric Sr. was among the earliest and most loyal partisans for arch-fiend Donald Trump.

The death of a child, perhaps a suicide, should not be visited on any parent.

BELOW: Bolling, Sr. and Jr.
Posted:Sep 6, 2017 7:18 pm
Last Updated:Sep 13, 2017 11:23 am
In 1970, when you and I were young, the brilliant journalist Tom Wolfe published two long essays, both of which were noteworthy: "Radical Chic," which recounted a party held by musician Leonard Bernstein with Black Panthers, and "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers," which described tactics used by black activist groups seeking financial grants from the city government of San Francisco. Wolfe was referring to the Mau-Mau uprisings in Kenya in 1952-1960. Both are in a sense about the same phenomenon: black warlords and hucksters playing upon those with white guilt for financial advantage.

Unfortunately, this has become the model for racial relations in the USA, right down to the present moment. The model described by Wolfe is that blacks availing themselves of native garb like dashikis and sheer physical intimidation successfully gamed the system in San Francisco and channeled public funds into their hands. Forty-seven years later this is still the model. The difference is the Mau Maus are not just black militants, but the entire radical Left, including Antifa, BLM, the Southern Poverty Law Center, et al.

Consider Charlottesville. Vice-Mayor Wes Bellamy successfully Mau-Maued the Charlottesville city government. But then came the violence in a legal, if distasteful, protest. Suddenly it is a national cause celebre. No one bothered to check whether Bellamy was an outrageously vile racist himself. (He is.) And what was the justification? The removal of Robert E Lee's statue in a park named for him.

Will we as a country ever move beyond this preposterous situation where Mau-Maus of all races force governments at all levels to capitulate to a code invented by malcontents who do not believe in our country?


Posted:Sep 1, 2017 5:32 pm
Last Updated:Sep 4, 2017 2:55 pm

If you wish to take issue with something I have written, have the guts to enter a comment on my blog. I'm sick of your sniveling, sidewise ripostes when I post a thought you cannot counter like a man.

How does it feel to be an ass? How does it feel like to be the hero of dysfunctional, senile women? Huh??

You creep me out.
Posted:Sep 1, 2017 12:00 pm
Last Updated:Sep 5, 2017 4:35 pm

Let me present them in red letters:

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides."

The following sentence in his statement is also good:

"It’s been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time.”

The words were spoken in the wake of the Charlottesville disturbances, as I'm sure you recall. Trump was absolutely clobbered by the media, the Democratic Party, and many virtue-signaling quisling Republicans. I have never before seen such an orgy of moral preening about a statement which was absolutely, verifiably true!

But it was a "dog whistle," as they say, to me -- Trump refused to give a pass to Antifa and BLM violence. Antifa's name has become ironic, as they are the primary provocateurs and agents of violence and nihilism, as well as abridgement of free speech. So we have fascists describing themselves as anti-fascists. The first thing totalitarians do is corrupt the language. Trump may be a blunt instrument, but Trump seems to be willing to take the heat for telling it like it is in plain English.

We find out today that federal agencies have been issuing internal warnings about the dangers of the alt-left:

In previously unreported documents dating back to April 2016 ,,,,, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security wrote that “anarchist extremists” and Antifa groups were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies. They blamed these groups for attacks on police, government and political institutions, racists, fascists and “symbols of capitalism.”

The agencies warned the rise of fascist, nationalist, racist or anti-immigrant groups in U.S. political discourse could lead to violent backlash from these “anarchist extremists.”

None of this was reported to the public until today. Obviously the Obama administration preferred another narrative. Trump has a first-hand understanding of this issue, as Antifa was a constant presence at his campaign rallies and at the Inauguration.

What kind of democracy allows a single dogma promulgated by a group of "elites" to govern all public discourse? Trump understands this -- and the words he spoke which were so strongly condemned were the bravest words of his presidency thus far

To link to this blog (Lisztomania) use [blog Lisztomania] in your messages.