Saturday, December 13, 2014


Japan with Gentlemen take polaroids. From the 1980 album of the same name.

There's a couple of great numbers on Gone to Earth I last heard in about 86 or 87 or so but don't have the patience to listen to it all to find 'em.

Donovan with Hurdy Gurdy Man. It's 1968.

Britain's answer to Bob Dylan.




I can't express my disgust and utter disappointment over the behaviour of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and in fact, the entire GOP top brass bar a few braves, any better than John Hawkins over at Townhall:


"...While it would certainly be cathartic to flog the GOP for the lousy omnibus bill House Republicans just passed, it seems more productive to tackle a bigger issue. After a historic, yet unearned (Obama was the real GOP MVP) election victory, isn’t it time for the Republican leadership to try to heal the rift with the base that’s tearing the party apart?

Do Republican leaders REALLY want to spend the next two years of a presidential election cycle getting trashed the way they are right now by activists, Tea Party leaders and radio talk show hosts? Anyone who thinks the base is going to sit down and shut up or that the GOP can thrive over the long-term with this kind of intra-party feuding going on is kidding himself.

So realistically, here’s what the Republican Party leaders need to do to help get everyone back on the same page.

1) They should never, ever, under any circumstances trash their base again. That means if the words "Tea Party, "Senate Conservatives Fund," "Mark Levin," “Rush Limbaugh,” “Club for Growth,” “Heritage Action,” etc., etc., come out of their mouths, then they better be saying something nice at best or neutral at worst. Additionally, staffers who mouth off about the base should be unceremoniously fired. At first, Republican politicians shouldn’t expect to have that favor to be returned, but if you’re a politician who wants unconditional love, go buy a dog.

2) The GOP has to keep its promises -- and quite frankly, more than a few Republicans seem to have a pre-YouTube era mentality about that. They think they can say anything they want on the campaign trail and then do something completely different in the office without people being any the wiser. For example, after the NRSC backed Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio, I fought it tooth-and-nail over that decision. After he won, Marco Rubio was one of my favorite politicians, but the moment he lied to us by breaking his campaign pledge to fight amnesty, he was dead to me. I will NEVER forgive Rubio for his dishonorable behavior, no matter what he does. Don’t lie through your teeth to people who took you at your word and then expect us to be stupid enough to trust you again.


4A) A few years back, Republicans in leadership did reach out a bit and while it may have helped a little, it ultimately wasn’t very effective because they looked at it as a way to try to sell what they were doing instead of having a conversation about shared goals. A lot of people, myself included, suspect the reason this isn't done is because we don't have the same aims on a lot of major legislation any more. I don't think the GOP leaders have any intention of seriously trying to stop Obama’s executive amnesty. I don't believe they're committed to the repeal of Obamacare. I was even forced to agree with NANCY PELOSI and ELIZABETH WARREN (vomit) about the GOP’s omnibus bill decision to make it easier for big banks to gamble with derivatives and the sleazy campaign finance reform that was designed to undercut activist groups. Would the GOP leadership really want to explain something like that beforehand? Ultimately, it wouldn’t be that hard to get grassroots leaders to line up behind smart strategies to achieve conservative policy goals, but it’s an open question whether the GOP’s leadership believes in the Republican Party’s own platform enough to fight for it anymore.

5) Speaking of fights, the GOP leaders need to prove they're willing to fight and WIN on something that really matters to conservatives. At this point, the expectation of the Democrats, the mainstream media and even the GOP base is that the Republican Party is going to cave in every time. At some point, Republicans have to prove they can go head-to-head with the Democrats and win on something that matters. Of course, congressional aides could probably name 10 things that people don't care about that much where they’d claim to have "fought and won," but that’s like a football team that’s behind 70-0 complaining it isn’t being given enough credit for all the 1st downs it’s gotten in the game.

6) People feel so burned by Boehner and McConnell that it would take AN INCREDIBLE amount of work for them to ever be trusted again. If someone like Jeb Hensarling took over in the House or John Thune took over in the Senate, he’d immediately get a much longer leash from the base because he’d be given the benefit of the doubt while people evaluated his performance. On the other hand, when it comes to Boehner and McConnell, symbolic gestures aren't going to cut it because we’re at a Cold War level of trust. It doesn’t matter how much Castro tells you he loves democracy and freedom; you’ll believe it AFTER Cuba has a free election.

Last but not least, there's toxic residue in this area that goes all the way back to the end of Bush’s first term that has never been addressed by the GOP leadership in an effective manner. There are a lot of conservatives who feel like they've been SCREAMING at the GOP for a decade and haven't been respected or heard. As long as the GOP leadership insists on maintaining a system where the only way conservative activists can make an impact is by raining hell down on the GOP leaders, they better keep a lot of ice water handy because that’s exactly what they’re going to continue to get.

Nuff said.

Or wait.

No, not nearly enough.


Thursday, December 11, 2014


This isn't revisionist.

It is the truth.

The important lesson to be learned is: never trust a leftist.

It was hardcore leftists, the North Vietnamese communists, who violated the Paris Peace Accords.

It was 'softcore' leftists, the Democrats, who cut off funding for the South Vietnamese government.

Even so, South Korea might have been able to resist its evil northern brother. But in contrast to the US's unilateral retreat once the Dems controlled Congress, North Vietnam's powerful communist allies, the USSR and China, kept pouring troops, logistical support and all kinds of military hardware inside North Vietnam.

The result was the collapse of South Vietnam, the Boat People, hundreds of thousands in re-education camps, a decade of American efforts and terrible bloodletting for nothing ... and the installment of a communist dictatorship yielding power from Hanoi to Saigon... a dictatorship that exists to this day.

Thanks but no thanks, Demonrats.

Why this post now?

Simple. We risk seeing history repeated. Iraq's government is corrupt and in the long term it may turn out that islam is truly and really a system humanity must either wipe out or starve to death if it is to be released from its burden. As long as there is no definitive proof of that, Iraq must be supported and given a chance to serve as a breeding ground, a dreadfully barren one, admitted, for democracy and for transformation of islam into at least something harmless to the other belief systems and societal models with which it shares this world.

This is a process which may indeed take hundreds of years. You can't undo 1,400 years of wrongheadedness in a mere couple of decades.

So we must keep supporting Iraq. Just as the US should have kept supporting South Vietnam (which was itself far from an ideal democracy, but still very preferable to its northern sibling).

This post also serves as a reminder that Democrats don't give a jolt about the lives of American soldiers. They were willing to reduce the sacrifice of 50,000 plus American troops and a multitude of maimed and wounded to naught for the sake of their immoral political agenda.

They are willing to do that AGAIN. We have been able to witness that this week, with the shameful release of Feinstein's 'report' regarding CIA operations in the WOT.

Never trust a leftist. Not now. Not ever. Nowhere.


Sunday, December 07, 2014


Don't you just LOVE it, De Standaard has found a new heroine in the person of Lena Dunham! Check it out:

 photo lena_dunham_DS_zpsfcfdb9b9.jpg


"Television maker Lena Dunham clashes with conservative America, but in Antwerp everybody loves her. How an 'edgy girl' got to be loved by everybody."

I'll spare you the nauseating bias and the umpteenth effort to depict Republicans and conservatives in the US as some kind of moronic subhumans who, oh, oppose Obamacare because a.) Obama is black, and/or b.) they just love letting the old and sick die in the gutter and/or c.) rejoice in their 'War on Women' or or or, etc etc etc. We've heard all that before. Point is, the gullible reader in Belgistan, relying for his news on De Standaard, is screwed again, because all he gets is such a one-sided picture and one so devoid of nuance and facts that next to it, the Pravda is exact science.

Now for some stuff Korneel Vandenbossche will never risk of coming across if he continues swallowing De Standaard drivel. First some revelations about Madam Dunham from The Daily Mail:

 photo Lena_Dunham_DM_zps2be8c537.jpg


Actor, 28, alleges that she was raped at Oberlin College in her memoir Not That Kind Of Girl
Media investigation at the Ohio campus found no proof of the man she describes in the book as her alleged attacker
Named as 'Barry', one man who somewhat fits the description says he has never met Dunham
Dunham has been accused of being 'grossly irresponsible' in publishing the claim
She did not report the incident to authorities

A media investigation into the allegations of rape featured in Lena Dunham's recently-released memoir has refuted the claims of sexual assault made by the Girls creator.
The writer, actor and director dedicates a chapter of her book, Not That Kind Of Girl - for which she received a reported $3.7 million advance - to a boy she met at Oberlin College in Ohio identified as 'Barry', who she alleges raped her one night after a party.

The 28-year-old admits in the tome to drinking alcohol and taking Xanax and cocaine before inviting Barry back to her on-campus apartment, but says the encounter quickly turned aggressive, and that Barry twice removed the condom during intercourse without telling her.

'I never gave permission to be rough, to stick himself inside me without a barrier between us,' she wrote.

'I never gave him permission.

'In my deepest self I know this, and the knowledge of it has kept me from sinking.'

Dunham's description of Barry is similarly explicit, explaining him as a 'mustachioed campus Republican' with a 'mustache that rode the line between ironic Williamsburg fashion and big buck hunter', who hosted a radio show called Real Talk With Jimbo, worked in the library stacking shelves and 'wore purple cowboy boots'.

She also said that he once punched a girl 'in the boob' at a party and, following a consensual sexual encounter, another girl woke to find blood spattered all over the wall 'like a crime scene'.

Furthermore Dunham does not state that 'Barry' is a pseudonym, as she does with other names that appear in her book.
An investigation by John Nolte from Breitbart News undertaken at the Oberlin campus, which was published Thursday, concluded that the 'Barry' Dunham describes is a 'ghost', and that no such person appeared to exist at the college during the years she studied there.
'In fact, we could not find anyone who remembered any Oberlin Republican who matched Dunham's colorful description,' Nolte wrote.
'Under scrutiny, Dunham's rape story didn’t just fall apart, it evaporated into pixie dust and blew away.'"

Conservative site Breitbart investigated Dunham's claim and came up with, a.o., the following (the Daily Mail article goes on):

"The Breitbart report followed an attack on Dunham by The National Review's hard-right columnist Kevin Williamson, who said she was 'grossly irresponsible' for publishing the rape claim in the first place.

Williamson said he spoke to a Barry who was a prominent Republican that attended Oberlin and that has been hounded by the media since the release of Not That Kind Of Girl in September.

This Barry told Williamson he has never met Dunham and did not have any kind of relationship with her.

He said the fact his name is Barry and that he is a Republican who went to Oberlin is 'the 'most unfortunate coincidence of my life'.

The man, who is married with kids, said he is petrified that his full name is going to be published.

Williamson then wrote of Dunham: 'It is at the very least the deployment of weaponized celebrity without any concern for collateral damage..."

OK, in the imaginary scenario of a leftozoid DS editor even willing to contemplate that there's more to this story and that it's not so favourable for our 'edgy girl', what we can expect then is that person claiming that the counterallegations come from a notorious rightwing site. Sure. That's why you don't have to take my word for it, and that's also why I do not posit that The Daily Mail offers bulletproof evidence to the contrary of Dunham's claims. But at age 49 I have come across such a gargantuan amount of lies and falsehoods perpetrated by the Left that I'm willing to believe that there was NEVER a 'mustachioed Conservative Republican' on Oberlin by the name of 'Barry' - and if there ever was, he did not rape her. Especially the last ten years I've seen the lies spread by the left multiply like ebola on steroids. From Piers Morgan who claimed British soldiers pissed on Iraqi POW's in an army truck over that other Barry 'if you like your plan you can keep your plan' to Hillary C. assuring Charles Woods, father of Navy SEAL Ty Woods, murdered in Benghazi, that "they were going to have that filmmaker arrested" [Mark Basseley Youssef - MFBB] - even though the movie made by that man was definitely NOT what triggered the embassy attack.

But hey, now that we're taking about rape, how about this??? In her own 'book', Not that kind of girl, Lena Dunham describes how she, as a child, sexually molested her younger sister:

"Dunham writes of casually masturbating while in bed next to her younger sister, of bribing her with “three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds … anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.” At one point, when her sister is a toddler, Lena Dunham pries open her vagina — “my curiosity got the best of me,” she offers, as though that were an explanation."

"In one particularly unsettling passage, Dunham experimented with her six-year younger sister’s vagina. “This was within the spectrum of things I did,” she writes.
In the collection of nonfiction personal accounts, Dunham describes using her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet, bribing her to kiss her for prolonged periods and even masturbating while she is in the bed beside her."

If you thought Kevin Williamson, the National Review columnist who came out with this, is sucking it out of his thumb, nossir. Here's the relevant page straight out of Dunham's memoirs:

 photo lena_dunham_book_zps83a6bf4b.jpg

BUT ALL OF THAT DOES NOT MATTER! De Standaard has found a new role model for young women to emulate!!! A new heroine, so sick from eeeeeeevil Republicans and their 'War on Women' that 'SHE HAS OFTEN THOUGHT OF LEAVING AMERICA'. Dixit De Standaard.

Memo to De Standaard editors: congrats you fucking lying losers, you again give here ample proof that you can lay just as much claim to the laurels of objective, fact-based Journalism - which you so often bestow upon yourself - as Michael Mann can to be a Nobel Laureate. Oh, excuse me, that's another leftist LIE we won't hear about from you.

As for Lena Dunham, PLEASE ma'am, DO LEAVE THE STATES. For good if you please.

But don't come to Europe, for God's sake. We've got our fill from the likes of you, and it's spilling over.

Go to Iran, Syria, Yemen, Mali, Gaza, Afghanistan. Now THERE they're waging a War on Women, even though you're trying so hard to ignore it. CUNT.