WOOF! Watchdogs of Our Freedom

Archive for 2016|Yearly archive page

Dear Donald, Sir: WOOF’s Open Letter to the President Elect

In "Only you Dick Daring" forum on December 29, 2016 at 2:26 pm


We wouldn’t normally presume to offer unsolicited advice to an incoming president, at least in such detail, Mr. Trump–except that we may well be responsible for your surprise victory over “Her Magnificence” (a cognomen for Mrs. Clinton impulsively bestowed upon her by an effusive Tina Brown and used routinely by us here at WOOF ever since).  But you probably know Tina, right? You seem to know all the glittery people. Anyway–we don’t suppose you had time to notice but we closed our October anniversary post with a suggestion that all patriotic Americans enter the voting booth and cast their ballots while chanting (quietly, of course so as not to distract others) Klaatu barada nikto.


Gort, Miss Neal, and an unidentified friend.

The logic here is relatively obvious: If Patricia Neal’s recitation of those words saved the earth from Gort the robot in the 1951 screen classic The Day the Earth Stood Still, we were pretty certain  they might work to save the earth from Hillary, too.  It is, of course, impossible to authoritatively tabulate how many American voters actually took our advice and thereby sought to enlist extraterrestrial assistance in saving the United States from destruction– but it only took Patricia Neal in the movie–so you can see our point when we say that your shocker electoral triumph may be largely or at least partly due to us–and, of course, benevolent space intelligences who can presumably hack election results without leaving a trace…or perhaps simply transmogrify the hearts of thousands of voters–who knows? So, on this basis, we at WOOF are tendering a kind of desideratum for you to ponder during the lull.


On forsaking Christine…


Left on the bench this election year, Christine O’Donnell looks fairly philosophical about it, we think.

And here’s another point. You may not read WOOF regularly, Donald, sir—and we understand if you don’t. After all, you actually work for a living, and you were busy on top of that getting elected—and before that, no offense, you seemed pretty liberal. So we can understand if you aren’t familiar with our editorial customs. But by way of demonstrating how united we became post-convention behind your candidacy, we want to point out that 2016 is the first presidential year we didn’t nominate a separate candidate for the White House. Usually, we nominate Christine O’Donnell—remember her? We just love her. After the 2012 fiasco, we mailed out a lot of our famous “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Christine O’Donnell” bumper stickers. We ran out of them…and since we didn’t charge money for them, we couldn’t afford to print more. But that’s not the point. The point is—and we hope you are properly impressed by it—that despite having a bunch of fresh bumper stickers ready to go this year, we hung fire! And this despite the fact that our planned “Christine in ‘16” slogan reflected the last presidential election year that rhymes with the comely Delawarean’s name until next century—so it took some restraint, believe us!



We’re here to help, Donald—and you’ll like our advice on these matters because it’s the best advice. It’s huge. And it’ll be great. Great. We promise! For example:

Bush signs border fence bill--his heart may have been in the right place, but the fence never was!

Bush signs border fence bill–his heart may have been in the right place, but the fence never was!

Immigration: You know you have to build a wall, right? It was hardly your idea, although because of your outspokenness on the subject, most people probably think so. Few, for that matter, realize that Peter T. King (R-NY) introduced the “Secure Fence” bill in 2006, and that it was passed by both houses of congress including a supportive vote from Hillary Clinton. When“W” signed it into law, he told onlookers that, “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.”

imjustabillUnfortunately, bills are just pieces of paper and they can’t do any of those things, and while fragments of a “secure fence” were built, mostly the fence remained unbuilt. In no time at all, wily illegals perceived that crossing the border in those far-more-numerous locations where there was no fence was as easy as ever. Eventually, this flaw caught the attention of the 110th Congress, which introduced the “Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008”, even though the 2006 act was never really un-instated. The reinstatement bill called for building enough fence to seal the entire border, which is what the original fence was supposed to do—but this version of the bill died in committee.

Some of the construction standards need to be reviewed, too, we think.

Some of the construction standards need to be reviewed, too, we think.

In 2010, waves of illegal aliens poured across America’s southern border at such appalling rates that Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) decided to take action by authoring the “Finish the Fence” amendment to Peter King’s original bill of 2006, requiring Homeland Security to complete the project by constructing an additional 353 miles of fencing, which wasn’t technically “additional,” because it was already supposed to be there, only it wasn’t. But the amendment to finish the fence that was already lawfully mandated by the original bill died in committee. By 2012 public outrage had grown to a level that the Republican platform that year declared, “The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built.” Strangely, however, the Republican congress seemed to forget all about this plank of the GOP platform in the wake of Obama’s re-election.


There are plenty of engineers in the former Peoples Republic of East Germany who can build decent walls–why not consult them? If it keeps people in, it can keep people out, right? And the towers can double as burger & taco restaurants for sightseers–just sayin.’

In fact, even defeated candidate Mitt Romney, whose platform contained the urgent language, joined a chorus of GOP luminaries calling for immigration reforms, which in Washington DC means the abandonment of all efforts at reform and the approval, instead, of blanket amnesty. Romney recommended “swallowing hard,” and passing “a permanent amnesty bill.” Nobody to our knowledge has figured out precisely what distinguishes permanent amnesty bills from ordinary amnesty bills or why swallowing makes them less stupid, but despite valiant efforts by congressional RINOs, no amnesty at all has passed—leaving it to President Obama to impose de facto Amnesty, accompanied by his peculiar resurrection of busing as a means of relocating masses of illegal, non-English-speaking immigrants to distant states—mostly ones that he hates.

Liberals are fond of solving problems with busses--and

Liberals are fond of solving problems with buses–and “Obamabussing” illegal immigrants into states unfriendly to illegal immigration is bound to change hearts and minds…or at least voting demographics..

TRUE FACT: Until recently, liberals loved border walls. Here, well known leftist Big Bird sings and dances on the Great Wall of China, beloved by liberals everywhere.

TRUE FACT: Until recently, liberals loved border walls. Here, well known leftist Big Bird sings and dances on the Great Wall of China, beloved by liberals everywhere.

The situation persists. In fact, only recently, the New York Times even noticed it. The Times was quick to assert that building a wall is “impractical,” commenting that “more restrictive immigration policies” would be better. The Times may have forgotten that such immigration policies (indeed, immigration laws) already exist, but are no longer enforced. So, yes, we really need a wall. And don’t think a Republican House and Senate necessarily means this will be easily achieved. Look at their record. Guts are in short supply in Washington, Donald sir, and money talks. A lot of your superficial supporters on the Hill continue working for business interests seeking cheap labor, and the pro-immigration groups (almost all of which represent the Worldwide Totalitarian Socialist Conspiracy that Governs Us) seeking to deracinate our culture and subvert our constitution. These interests must be crushed. Not negotiated with–crushed. So build the wall, Donald, sir—and yes, make Mexico pay for it. There are, in fact, several ways to do this—and you probably know what they are. The two most obvious are impounding the 25 billion that flows back into Mexico from Mexicans working in our country—or you could simply redirect the 25 million that Mexico receives from us in the form of foreign aid annually, or both. The academics and media pundits who maunder on piteously that the ramifications of such moves would be horrendous for Mexico have at once grasped and missed the point. But you grasped that a long time ago—didn’t you! Build the wall.



Senate Majority Leader’s face registering unrestrained delight as CNN confirms a Trump victory.

Congress—your new “allies” Even long-time spokespeople for the political right—people who, in other words, should know better—are waxing ecstatic over the fact that the GOP outperformed all expectations in retaining control of the House and the Senate. Granted, this is much better news than losing these institutions to the leftist hordes, but that doesn’t amount to unicorns and sunbeams…far from it. Any supposition that the majority of GOP members in these crucial governing bodies “got the message” can be immediately dispelled by the consideration that both Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan were immediately reinstated to their leadership positions. We aren’t certain that you understand what appalling news this is, Mr. Donald—but believe us when we tell you, it is an absolutely dismal beginning, signaling a difficult and treacherous road ahead.

Smiling men with bad reputations…

You probably recall that Mr. Ryan has been an outspoken critic of practically everything you’ve proposed, said, or thought throughout the nominative process and general election. When you suggested banning Muslim immigration for a period, he professed to be horrified, moaning that such a moratorium was “not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.” Absurdly, Mitch McConnell found grounds to object to your proposal (no different from Jimmy Carter’s temporary ban of the same nature) because “It would prevent the president of Afghanistan from coming to the United States. The king of Jordan couldn’t come to the United States. Obviously we’re not going to do that.” Senator McConnell did not indicate why either the King of Jordan or the President of Afghanistan might wish to immigrate to America, which would be the only condition under which your ban would apply to them—but Mitch has never been a deep thinker.

Smiling men with bad reputations.

Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani registers shock and anguish upon learning that he may not be eligible for American citizenship under Trump.

Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani registers shock and anguish upon learning that he may not be eligible for American citizenship under Trump.

It wasn’t that long ago that McConnell was assuring the media elites that his senatorial leadership would spell doom for the cursed Tea Party. When McConnell crowed to his allies at the New York Times that “…we are going to crush them everywhere,” he wasn’t talking about the Democrats—he was talking about his own party’s conservatives. The primary victories of RINOs like John McCain, Thad Cochran, Kelly Ayotte and yes, Paul Ryan, all won against first rate tea-party-style challengers, are tributes to McConnell’s jihad against the GOP’s conservative element. And because American voters still prefer RINOs to radical leftists, all but Ayotte (who went out of her way to trash your candidacy on the advice of her expert consultants) won their elective contests.

Ayotta looked leftward for support in opposing Trump...so the Democrat won.

Ayotte looked leftward for support …so the Democrat won.

You must have noticed that guys like Ryan and McConnell were sniping at you the whole way for the amusement of the inside-the-beltway gerbil pack—and they haven’t changed any, and they can’t stand you, Donald. As soon as they can bad mouth your presidential performance to the piranhas at WaPo or the lynch mob on Meet the Press, they’ll jump at the opportunity. And the rest of “your” Republican House and Senate voted for them to retain their leadership roles—so don’t think that you have a GOP wind at your back—it’s really a RINO dirk. Wasn’t it the Incredible String Band’s Mike Heron who recorded an album back in the day entitled “Smiling Men with Bad Reputations”? The description was never more apt!


Speaker Ryan –more isn’t than ism.

Some giddy optimist at National Review (which we know you declared a failed publication, but just the same) wrote recently that “Conservatives should hope for a synthesis of Trumpism and Ryanism that improves on both.” There are several flaws in this argument. First, there is no such thing as “Ryanism” in a strict sense. Ryanism, unlike Reaganism, or McCarthyism, or for that matter Trotskyism, is an ism without viscera. A smarmy willingness to compromise with the very forces one swore implacable opposition to only months earlier, while doggedly serving, no matter how underhandedly, whichever interests may currently offer maximum media strokes and establishmentarian approval, is less an ism than a personality disorder.

Second, we are fairly certain that Paul Ryan is not a student of Hegel, and we are willing to bet that you aren’t either…sir. So the idea of synthesis, while philosophically charming, is almost certainly inapplicable in praxis. More probably, Ryan will spend his time and energies half-consciously assessing your perceived gains or losses in the matrix of power politics, all the while maneuvering in accordance with his perceptions. This is not a guy you can merge with synergistically. Nothing about the man will hold still long enough to merge with.


And finally, sir, “hope” is not a policy—and Conservatives are better advised to spend their time creating (and in many cases, remember, tenaciously obstructing) change, than hoping for it or against it. Let the liberals do the hoping.


Chuck Schumer--avuncular pick pocket.

Chuck Schumer–avuncular pick pocket.

Congress—your former friends Now about your “friends” from the old days—and in particular, since you recently made mention of him, your relationship with Chuck Schumer. We know you probably don’t like us iterating this unattractive concern, Donald, but to run the detail past you one final time, you seem to have been a rather liberal and Democrat-oriented guy for the majority of your time on this planet, and we can definitely understand that—up to a point. After all, when it comes to the particulars of doing business, whether in New York or internationally, one must deal with, befriend, play golf with, and express common ground with a lot of politicians and proverbial “fat cats” who are almost uniformly leftist, whether in the oleaginous domestic sense, or that more cosmopolitan sense that one associates with the likes of Alfonso Cortina, Thierry Breton , or Sir Anthony Salz.  But we got kind of worried when we heard you say that you look forward to working with Chuck Schumer because you “have always had a good relationship with [him]” and because “He is far smarter than Harry Reid and has the ability to get things done.”


Harry Reid: Wherever there’s an exercise machine beatin’ up a guy–he’ll be there!

So okay, yes, Schumer is far smarter than Harry Reid, but let’s be honest, so is the average begonia. Also, Reid’s extraordinary inability to voice any criticism or accusation that doesn’t ring simultaneously with mendacity and heinousness made him a kind of poster child for the depraved Left—a Golem-like figure so divested of redeemable characteristics that his opposition to any person or principle served as an almost automatic advertisement for the virtue of whatever he saw fit to assail. A man so detestable that his own exercise machine beat him up. You won’t be so lucky with Schumer, whose genius for duplicity is refined, and whose ability to dissemble any point whilst affecting a certain heuristic (not to say cloyingly condescending) sincerity is comparatively effective with large numbers of gormless voters and media poltroons.

It may be a particularly bitter lesson for you, sir, given your guileless enthusiasm for such characters, but the same politicians it was pleasant and profitable to schmooze while you chatted about real estate deals, or private jets, are now your blood enemies….and flattering someone like Chuck Schumer based on fond recollections of innocent times gone by will not drain him of a scintilla of malice. Consider that no sooner had you found gracious words for the newly anointed Senate minority leader than he made a beeline for the Politico to assure them he was not your friend, never ate a meal with you, never played golf with you, and only took around ten-thousand dollars in donations from you over past election cycles because—well—you only really became objectionably despicable about a year ago. He reminded us of Obama back in 2008 making a show of struggling to remember who on earth Bill Ayers was.

“…this is just a guy who lives in my neighborhood….”

How liberals compromise….

On FOX News Schumer vowed to compromise with your administration, yes; but he vowed to do so only on those occasions when your objectives “echoed the views of Democrats,” which is to say, when you already agree with him. For almost 50 years this has been the Democrat approach to “compromise,” and Schumer is a past master. Notice he has also laid groundwork for “compromise” on the 2nd Amendment, telling reporters that you can “prove” your administration is serious about keeping domestic terrorists at bay “only” by “persuading the National Rifle Association to support gun control measures sponsored by Democrats.” Only, in other words, by abridging the 2nd Amendment.

Chuck firmly believes that anyone who can get lciensed for concealed carry in NYC should own a gun. So far, however,, he's the only one.

Chuck Schumer firmly believes that anyone who can get a license for concealed carry in NYC should be allowed to carry a gun.  So far, however, he’s the only one who’s managed. 

The man has already made plain his devotion to compromise on the topic of healthcare, telling MSNBC that “Obamacare, he [Trump] won’t be able to do.” And build the wall? Impossible, says Chuck, “unless he includes a plan for immigration reform.” Yes, we know—this seems funny on the face of it. Saying you can’t wall off the border unless you also have a plan to reform immigration is exactly like saying you can’t go on a diet unless you also have a plan to lose weight. You probably think, well, we can file that one under “duh,” right? Wrong. In liberaleze this means a compromise is required in which you agree to blanket amnesty in exchange for the Democrats agreeing to fund your wall—and, in liberaleze, this means that amnesty will be driven through and the wall will never again be mentioned.


Obamacare must die. And the longer you wait to kill it, the harder it will be. This is due in part to the fact that as soon as the leftwing establishment media begin churning out shrill warnings indexabout what cataclysmic ramifications are certain to follow upon the repeal of this most invidious means of human bondage, a substantial number of Republicans will turn to jello and begin scoring brownie points with their media handlers by appearing on newscasts to support the liberal view. They will appear jointly, as is traditionally the case, with Democrats who will provide contrast by also supporting the liberal view. You must confront this tenaciously! It would be more than sufficient grounds to kill the Affordable Care Act owing to its horrendous impact on business, and small business in particular. It adds to unemployment because most employers daren’t surpass the limits at which they must become providers or custodians of all sorts of reticulate, poorly understood, and often Dadaistic healthcare requirements that cannot be afforded by struggling businessmen, or easily accessed by employees bucking such obstacles as impossibly high deductibles and a drastically diminished quality of service provision.


Too late the hero? Maybe it took 25 hours to rescue John Roberts’s loved ones.

It also remains a constitutional fact that Americans cannot be compelled by their government to purchase a product–any product–unless they have voluntarily entered into some sort of contractual relationship necessitating the purchase. In other words, if you decide to drive a car, the state will allow you to do so on the condition (to give a single example) that you are an insured driver. (Unless, of course, you are an illegal alien, but we digress…) You may choose not to drive a car, or you may prefer to move to a state where the requirements for driving a car are more to your liking, but if you seek a license, you are required to provide certain assurances of indemnification. Not everyone drives, and Heaven knows not everyone should drive–but everyone gets sick now and then, and the government cannot pretend that we do so voluntarily or as part of a contractual understanding.


Actually, we DON’T like that we agree.

The mandated coverage aspect of Obamacare is a tyranny, foisted upon Americans (through the reprehensible connivance of Chief Justice Roberts) as somehow constitutional. Which, clearly, it is not.  It was Justice Roberts’s genius to rewrite the Administration’s argument, you may recall, Donald, sir, so that the increasing levels of fines levied against citizens who failed to comply with the law mandating purchase of health insurance were reimagined as a tax.  Everyone knows taxes are legal, so hey, presto, so became the individual mandate.  Nobody knows what Justice Roberts may have been smoking, or if Jack Bauer simply failed to liberate whatever beloved relative of Roberts’s was being held hostage by Obama’s minions in time to spare the Chief Justice rendering a coerced  opinion– but that’s all behind us now.  Sadly, Obamacare is not, and it has to go– and go now, while its conspicuous failures–intended to make totalitarian control of America’s medical establishment irresistable–can be held aloft instead as proofs of the entire scheme’s impracticality.

Despite the First Lady's mastery of several styles of Kung-fu, the Obama's remain reluctant to return to Chicago.

Despite the First Lady’s mastery of several styles of Kung-fu, the Obamas remain reluctant to return to Chicago.

Take for example the fact that the impossible costs written into the law are now going higher, as dictated by the law’s fine print. Using Obama’s home state of Illinois as an example, premiums are blasting off to dizzying heights.  (Maybe that’s why Rappin’ Preezy says he won’t be returning to Chicago.) Bronze premiums are rising 48 percent, Silver are up 44 percent, and Gold is soaring to a 55 percent increase. (By the way, is this bronze and gold stuff all a Satanic rip-off of Plato’s Republic? Nevermind…) These hikes are similar to those occurring in all 50 states. And of course, all this was by design–because at this point the single payer option was to be trotted out, while all the insurance companies were to be accused of abject greed and driven out of the business by our benevolent leadership in Washington (read: the Leftists in charge of the caper) and specifically the IRS. After all, the IRS did such a good job fairly administering 501(c)(4) status to groups seeking to file as non-profits, it only follows that they should determine what degree and what types of health benefits our citizens may variously receive.  Seriously, Donald, this is like putting the Post Office in charge of the space program– except that it compounds blatant unsuitability with a history of overtly malicious bias.

Comrades, there are wreckers in the healthcare sector!

Photo of a communist show trial at which a woman confesses to be a wrecker in the medical field. WOOF apologizes for the blurry film quality--apparently there were wreckers in the photographic field, too.

Photo of a communist show trial at which a woman confesses to being a wrecker in the medical field. WOOF apologizes for the blurry film quality–apparently there were wreckers in the photographic field, too.

The collapse of Obamacare as we are now witnessing it was part of the original design. As intended, the private insurers (easily the dupes of the decade, so enthusiastically did they greet the idea of mandatory health insurance as a pending bonanza) are now facing bankruptcy unless they charge impossibly high premiums for governmentally dictated levels of coverage or simply drop out of the loop. This was the point at which a future president, say Hillary Clinton for instance, was supposed to carry the socialist ball forward by vilifying the evil corporate insurance providers and explaining to the same citizenry that thought it would be able to keep its insurance policies and its doctors if it wanted to, that thanks to the treason of the money-grubbing private providers, government had no choice but to step in and save the day. The scheme is almost pristinely Stalinist. A few show trials at which the CEOs of major insurance companies confessed to being “wreckers in the healthcare sector” would bring the whole thing to perfection. The ignorant masses would then demand pure government healthcare by tumult– But then you got elected, Donald, sir, and that was absolutely not in the plan.

Reportedly, the AMA's journal drew the line at agreeing to change it's traditional cover to accommodate the President's suggested replacement.

Reportedly, the AMA’s journal drew the line at agreeing to change it’s traditional cover to accommodate the President’s suggested replacement.

So now, behold Obama maneuvering to institutionalize the single-payer option by renaming it the “public option” and advocating its adoption in the Journal of the American Medical Association (wherein peer review would typically deflect such disingenuous and factually insupportable flimflammery, but not, evidently, when the flimflam has been ghost-written on behalf of the First Medic). Obama’s JAMA monograph expounds such significant medical insights as that “Congress should revisit a public plan to compete alongside private insurers in areas of the country where competition is limited,” by which, rest assured, he means the entire country. And the sparkly new idea he and his comrades have generated to address this “unexpected” difficulty? Why, a single-payer government system managed by the IRS and  designed to completely replace all other funding sources by undercutting the market with dollars bled from the very taxpayers to whom it will be offered! In other words, the same old endgame Obama has been advocating since 2003 when he blithely advised the AFL/CIO (who aren’t even doctors!) that he sought nothing short of “a single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan,” except that now he’s within a hair’s breadth of success.

You have a blessing in disguise, however, Donald sir, in Obamacare’s planned collapse–for instead of railing against the private sector and shouting that more of this poison will cure everyone, as Hillary was expected to do, you can point to the system’s myriad fatal flaws as evidence that the Affordable Care Act is a dramatic failure, and make the case for euthanizing the entire program.  Obamacare must be destroyed.

Remember when the Administration tried to sell Obamacare to Millennials? Somehow they remained totally uninterested despite a series of ads, many as brilliantly creative as this one.

Remember when the Administration tried to sell Obamacare to Millennials? Somehow they remained totally uninterested despite a series of ads, many as brilliantly creative as this one.


About Dodd-Frank As you will discover to be the case henceforth, helpful advisors will pop up unbidden to offer you unsolicited guidance with only your best interests at heart. It’s remarkable, actually, how often lifelong Democrat operatives pause to prescribe policies and attitudes for Republicans, and always in hopes of advancing and improving the Republican brand. If only our own side could display such magnanimity!

Mark Hamrick--we already discussed smiling men, right?

Mark Hamrick–we already discussed smiling men, right?

Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at Bankrate.com, for instance, recently opined that “It doesn’t look good for Donald Trump the populist to be essentially disemboweling what was the principal regulatory response to the financial crisis.” But you didn’t swear fealty to the Republican Party and its populist vision, did you, sir. No, in early September you announced from Trump Tower that you were “totally pledging [your] allegiance to the Republican Party and the conservative principles for which it stands.” Everybody heard you—including Reince Priebus whose brow jiggled in such a way that we assume he wasn’t anticipating the entirety of your vow. So in other words, Mark Hamrick might as sensibly have said, “It doesn’t look good for Donald Trump the turnip,” and completed his paralogism on that basis—it would have applied no less sensibly.

We labor the point only to remind you, Donald, that “smiling men with bad reputations” are everywhere, and they will devour you piecemeal if you don’t proof yourself against their advisements, which, no matter how prettily phrased, are never more than invitations to revisit the toxic-waste dump of leftwing agenda items. And what agenda item was Mark Hamrick subtly defending? Why, Dodd-Frank, of course—surely you realized.

Chris and Barney--they're from the government and they're here to help.

Chris and Barney–they’re from the government and they’re here to help.

Okay, as you no doubt recall, you promised to dump Dodd-Frank. This is a good idea, although it will not catch fire for you; first, because the average guy in the street has no idea what you’re talking about. Second, because the banks themselves are afraid to join you in protesting the law’s absurdities mainly because, third, the general perception of banking as an institution is almost entirely negative nowadays—from the Occupy movement to the Tea Party and at most points in between, the “banksters” are loathed and excoriated. And one thing you can say for Dodd-Frank, it definitely makes bankers miserable. Of course, favoring this imbecilic law because it beats up the banks is about as intelligent as favoring confiscatory taxation for the wealthy because one resents rich people.

I'll show you, you scurrilous bankers and rich people--after me, you're next!

“I’ll show you, you scurrilous bankers and rich people–and after me, you’re next!”

Dick Durbin--file photo

Dick Durbin–(file photo)

The Economist recently noted that “After the crisis of 2008, finance plainly needed better regulation. Lots of institutions had turned out to enjoy the backing of the taxpayer because they were too big to fail.” But wait a minute—aren’t government (which is to say taxpayer) bailouts the last resort of government regulators? And would bailouts be necessary if banking institutions were not press ganged into making untenable loans to minorities as a result of people like—well, Dodd and Frank—and threatened with federal retaliation if they refused to issue bad paper?

The Worldwide Socialist Totalitarian Conspiracy that Governs Us (file photo)

The Worldwide Socialist Totalitarian Conspiracy that Governs Us (file photo)

In fact, six years after the passage of this harebrained rewrite of our financial laws, Dodd-Frank has beaten small bankers senseless, left large bankers leveraged against the flurry of endlessly incomprehensible rules and regulations with which the legislation bristles, strangled access to credit, and set us up for a banking collapse that could dwarf 2007. As you seem to perceive, Donald, the whole mess was concocted by politicos who either believed or who found it expedient to pretend that deregulation caused the banking crisis. But when the federal government coerces banks into behaving incautiously, there is no deregulation. And Barney Frank and Little Chrissie Dodd running the nation’s finances makes no more sense than Joseph Stalin trying to run the Soviet Union’s agricultural programs or railroads. It was ridiculous back when Barney and Chrissie (and Dick Durbin –remember him?) were busy causing the credit collapse, and became even more ridiculous when the same culprits expressed outrage at the problems they’d caused and volunteered to fix them, whereupon Frank and Dodd churned out a 14,000 page bill…or rather, they agreed to carry the bill forward on behalf of the shadowy forces that concocted it. WOOF could explain these shadowy forces in detail, but it would require another 8,000 words—so for brevity’s sake we like to call them the Worldwide Totalitarian Socialist Conspiracy that Governs Us (somebody says we stole that particular description from the John Birch Society, but so far they haven’t complained). _________________________________



Defense Okay, so far so good! In fact, people often ask us things from time to time like “who would you choose for secretary of defense?” And we always got a kick out of replying “Mad Dog Mattis!” which remark would probably leave more liberals aghast if only more liberals knew who on earth he was– but it sufficed to scare the bejabbers out of the better informed amongst them. It also–have not the slightest doubt–drove Barack Hussein Obama up the Oval Office wall, he having purged the legendary Marine along with scores of other combat-hardened career officers in his putsch to oust  battle-worthy commanders from the military’s top ranks, making way for the kinds of sycophantic careerists with whom he prefers to populate the Pentagon (WOOF story here). And while this was going on, Obama’s short-lived but remarkably destructive secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, was outspokenly determined to reduce the ranks of our military to the smallest number of active units since before World War II, at which he succeeded, sad to say–given how a vastly reduced military prior to World War II conduced rather obviously to America’s involvement in–well–World War II.  And this in the face of massive build-ups by Russia and Red China whose forces have been consistently upgraded and expanded since the beginning of the present century, and whose militaries are mainly deployed in anticipation of armed conflict with those forces that survived Chuck Hagel’s  meat grinder. “The U.S. Military…is aging. It’s shrinking in size,” warns Dakota Wood, a Heritage Foundation analyst. And this, sir Donald, is profoundly understated.


Why don’t things like Obama and Chuck Hagel ever happen to the Chinese?

Here’s a thought: You could make Our Beloved Helmsman even more frantic were you to appoint, say, Jim Webb as Secretary of the Navy. Yes, he was SecNav already under Reagan, but now that Mr. Webb is a Democrat (and a sufficiently outspoken and insubordinate one to keep the DNC in conniptions) it would be fun to ask him to return and once again set about the creation of a 600-hull fleet.  We at WOOF have been lambasted a time or two for recommending that the Iowa class battleships be once again recalled to service– and by a number of well-informed, patriotic readers who happen to think the idea is–well–stupid. But we’d still be okay seeing the three ships in this category returned to the high seas–call us hopeless romantics–but don’t you think it might be worth considering, Mr. Donald? Those Iowa BBs are big–they’re huge. Huge.


Nothing says “huge!” like nine 16″ rifles–just sayin’

But apart from this admittedly arguable recommendation, there is no escaping the fact that our naval presence around the world is now dangerously thin. As we mentioned, Webb built Reagan a 600-hull navy–and in fact, the average size of the U.S. fleet since World War II has been better than 700 ships. Know how many we have at the moment, Mr. Donald? If you guessed 273, you’re doing well—but our Navy isn’t. It cannot keep ships deployed in a number of theatres important to the global maritime environment. Our international adversaries are well aware of these gaps in the Navy’s coverage and you can be sure they are itching to exploit them. Without firing a shot they can focus influence in regions that may be co-opted into alliances or reliances on potential enemies to the detriment of American interests—and this must be addressed quickly. Sea power remains the most visible and influential form of military might. Building ships, improving weaponry, and keeping our technologies ahead of the curve will cost a lot, but we cannot afford to continue downsizing and revising our Naval presence.

The U.SS. Zumwalt is pretty cool--she is the name vessel of 28 more ships, all but two of which got cancelled by the Administration. And the Zumwalt broke down on her shake-down cruise--a little help?

The U.S.S. Zumwalt is pretty cool–she is the name vessel of 28 more ships in her class of Destroyers, all but two more of which got cancelled by the Administration. And the Zumwalt broke down on her shakedown cruise–a little help?

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel speaks to U.S. troops at the Al Udeid Airbase, west of Doha December 10, 2013. Hagel briefed Qatari leaders on Tuesday about the effort to destroy Syria's chemical weapons, and he underscored U.S. support for Syria's moderate opposition. Hagel met with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad and Defence Minister Hamad bin Ali al-Attiyah on the last day of a visit to the region to reassure Gulf Arab allies of continuing U.S. support, despite disagreements over Washington's policy toward Syria and its diplomatic overtures to Iran. Picture taken December 10. REUTERS/Mark Wilson/Pool (QATAR - Tags: MILITARY POLITICS) - RTX16DBM

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel uses hand gestures to show troops how to shrink to pre-WWII levels and yet remain a credible deterrent. Some skepticism is detectable in the ranks.

The Army is in even sadder shape.  Aside from the desperate need for improvements in the areas of enhanced lethality, enhanced survivability, improved communications systems, and imaginative advances in its avionic and electronic warfare programs, it needs two-hundred-and-fifty thousand more troops.

Another thing--have you noticed that

Another thing–have you noticed that “nose art” has deteriorated at the same rate as our air supremacy? Maybe you should revive that, too, Donald sir!

And then there is air power to consider. As you come to office,  Red China is phasing more than 1,000 advanced fighters into service.  They will be deployed in full before the end of your first term. Russia is racing to modernize its force of fighter and bomber aircraft. Meanwhile, we are still trying to get the F-35 to stay in the air and not catch fire on takeoff. You see, President Obama killed the F-22 Raptor, so we only have about 120 of those magnificent fighters operational. The idea was that the F-35 would be so much better. This is an old liberal ploy, Donald, sir—kill an efficient weapons project with promises of something much better to come, and then either deploy a flock of turkeys or kill the next project, too, on the same premise. But in battle, a sky full of something is better than a portfolio full of promises.


Consider also Northrop’s unbuilt F-23; another excellent fighter option that doesn’t catch fire or suffer “brain problems,” and that looks really awesome, don’t you think?

Build war planes—and build them using your particular genius for cutting through the bureaucratic bologna and wangling the best bang for the buck. To begin with, reboot F-22 production to the tune of an additional 250. That action alone will answer the Chinese expansion profoundly. The F-35 may ultimately prove serviceable in several capacities, but it is too complex, too expensive, and sacrifices too much maneuverability in the name of technological gimmickry to be relied upon as a our first line fighter. Oh, and our Navy needs fighter aircraft that suit its particularly strenuous requirements for carrier duty—don’t saddle them, or the Marines, with a compromise like the F-35 that satisfies nobody because it was meant to satisfy everybody.

F-35s catching fire on their runways--Obama's emphasis on the aircraft's greater destructive capacity neglected to mention that a good deal of it is self-directed.

F-35s catching fire on the ground–Obama’s emphasis on the aircraft’s greater destructive capacity neglected to mention that a good deal of it seems to be self-inflicted.


General Daniel “Chappie” James

Sadly, sir Donald, we must also refurbish and update our nuclear missiles. Your predecessor has been cutting back on  them as fast as he can, and the damage to our security is extreme.  The Russians will take note of improvements to our strategic bomber and missile forces and respect it—and so will the doddering commie oligarchs in Beijing, who are all Maoist atheists and in no hurry to be disintegrated, trust us. Wars aren’t won or prevented on a budget—but a close eye on how an expanded budget is managed at the Pentagon can put us out front again. As Air Force General Daniel “Chappie” James once told a contingent of his fellow Black Americans who complained that his campaign for the B-1 meant less money available for improved sewage systems in East Burbank, “Without the B-1, there won’t be any East Burbank.” You should really hire General James, Donald, except he’s been dead since 1978. Nobody’s perfect!


Whose ox shall we gore today?” (Nyuck, nyuck!)

Budget cutting. Cutting taxes increases revenue. But this fact is so little understood by anybody other than Arthur Laffer and everyone in the WOOF cave, that cutting taxes can never be proposed as an economic stimulus without legions of critics chanting, “What budget cuts will you make to offset the loss in revenue?” And of course, budget cuts are a great idea in and of themselves, because we conservatives favor budgetary restraint, as Jeff Sessions has presumably taught you by now. But when you encounter demands for budget cuts from those afflicted with the sophism that reducing taxes amounts to reducing revenues, you will notice they seem overwhelmingly of the opinion that it can’t really be done (which is how you know they never wanted taxes reduced in the first place).  They all say the same thing, to wit, “Whose ox are you willing to gore?”  Ignore the planted axiom that all federal purse tightening must slash welfare and entitlement programs (although this is never an unattractive idea), and tell them you have quite a few substantial cuts in mind that lie outside the province of these gored oxen. As they blink uncomprehendingly, compound their bewilderment by suggesting that for starters you plan to sell Amtrak and the post office for a dollar apiece. Stress that the price is open to negotiation.

irsindexQuickly, while their minds reel with visions of motionless locomotives wrapped in vines and undeliverable parcels, add that you want to dissolve the IRS.  There is no constitutionally defensible basis upon which this tyrannical and politically malignant institution can justify its existence–and the multitudes that inhabit its dark kingdom can be replaced by any number of simple and equitable tax plans. Why not ask Ted Cruz for help devising a plan that will benefit the exchequer without immiserating the citizenry or shredding the bill of rights?  It’s time you two buried the hatchet, and if you can bury the IRS along with it, so much the better.

Next–get rid of the Department of Education. The media will scream that without it, our youth will fall prey to ignorance and illiteracy, but that’s what we believe you New Yorkers call crap. You know about the NEA, right? No other professional organization points annually to the increasingly poor product its members produce as evidence that its members deserve raises. Well, the whole Department of Education was created by Jimmy Carter as a pay-off to the National Education Association for its support in his 1976 election. Nobody needed it then or now. It spent 80 billion this year alone, and achieved nothing except a continued decline in the literacy and general educational levels of America’s school children. Under Obama it became a major promoter of “Common Core” which is a bane to the Republic and a propaganda utensil intended by its radical creators to turn our sons and daughters into America-loathing ignoramuses with no actual concept of their own history, cultural significance, or identities.


Eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency will have every liberal academic and media flak in America ranting that you are destroying the planet and polluting the very air we breath (can’t you just hear them?) but in fact, the EPA is a clown act even when it isn’t functioning as a hit squad for leftist political ends. In August, it caused the massive collapse of a mine in Colorado. It also spilled millions of gallons of heavy-metal-contaminated goo into the Animas River and thence into the waterways of three states.  In 2013, in the midst of a blinding snowstorm, a cohort of EPA bravos donned helmets, vests, and combat utility harnesses, hefted their M-4 assault rifles, adjusted their goggles, and marched menacingly into Chicken, Alaska (WOOF did not make that up) to raid the alleged operational epicenter of a gang of  Clean Water Act violators headquartered in a copper mine. The Chicken raiders encountered no armed resistance from the dumbfounded workers, but several House subcommittee Republicans branded the mission “an effort to intimidate miners.” The EPA insisted it was acting to protect Alaskan fisheries from pollutants issuing from mining operations, while the mining CEO accused them of exercising “an authority that nowhere has Congress given them, to go across America and determine where development should occur and where it shouldn’t.”

Undeterred by snowfall, the EPA's heavily armed paramilitary wing assaults Chicken, Alaska.

Undeterred by snowfall, the EPA’s heavily armed paramilitary wing prepares to assault Chicken, Alaska.

Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-Calif) attempted to look into the matter, but when his committee subpoenaed the EPA biologist whose advice triggered the raid, the guy disappeared. When Issa’s committee sought the biologist’s computer records, they disappeared too. The EPA “discovered” that all documents covering the mine episode in Chicken between April 2007 and May 2009 had vanished. Meanwhile, it transpired that the mine on which the biologist based his recommendation was not the mine the EPA raided, but rather “an imaginary mine the EPA invented,” as explained by Washington Examiner columnist Ron Arnold, who added, “You can’t respect anything the EPA says.”

Of course at one time everyone in Detroit just drank Stroh's, but we hear those days are gone too.

Of course at one time in Detroit people just drank Stroh’s, but we hear those days are gone too.

Meanwhile, perhaps most infamously, residents of Flint, Michigan called in the EPA to help with water contamination. But EPA decided to save money by introducing water from the Flint River as Flint’s tap water. The water was so polluted it ate away the pipes, further contaminating Flint’s water supply, which fact the EPA set about trying to cover up. The agency would have allowed Flint residents to continue drinking lead-contaminated water if it hadn’t gotten caught. Just get rid of them, Donald, sir. Don’t just drain the swamp– clear the air. We will all breathe easier.

hudimagesOther government agencies ripe for demobilization include the Department of Energy (another Carter brainstorm that led immediately to gas rationing and soaring prices at the pump), the Department of Commerce (whose very existence threatens commerce) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, named after a novel but hopelessly dated Paul Newman film. And when was the last time, sir, you looked over at Ivana during breakfast and said, “Say, honey, anything in the paper about whether Europe is complying with the Helsinki Accords?” Not for a while, right? And yet we find dollars in every year’s federal budget (except for those years when Obama didn’t bother submitting one, of course) to maintain a cold-war relic known as the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Europe can get along just fine without it, or perhaps more accurately, it won’t be any the worse for its absence.

Heck, even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a paramilitary arm under Obama—remember when they raided the Gibson guitar factory and seized materials and computer records because Gibson’s president gives money to Republican causes? Fortunately, Gibson finally got its wood back and created the “government model” guitar series (buy some here) to mock the event—but our mental jury is still out on Fish and Wildlife—maybe we’ll wait to hear from Chuck Berry on the matter.

And do you know what the Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC) does? It provides information–stuff like how to buy a new car, arrange a college loan, transplant your fluimagesDwarf fothergilla shrubs, install drainage around your home, or connect with additional government agencies if you need…well…additional government agencies. The FCIC mission statement touts the Center’s function as “answering questions relating to government services…” so here’s one: Why, in the age of the Internet, do we need the FCIC?

And then we have the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRR). Originally established to “identify policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term” and “achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run,” the Commission has obviously failed and can  best serve both its stated goals by disbanding.  But since the Center stubbornly refuses to see reason, you may have to be firm…all in the name of fiscal responsibility, of course.



Other tax-funded organizations you might consider terminating include the obviously feckless United States Institute of Peace; the quaintly antiquated Board on Geographic Names (USBGN), founded to ensure consistent spelling of map locations as the railroad expanded Westward, and the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), which we mention not only because nobody needs it, but also for its metaphoric implications pertaining to  these and countless additional agencies crying out for eradication. We could fill an entire article citing additional examples of federal flab in desperate need of actuarial liposuction, but you get the idea, right?



ISIS At home, begin by supporting passage of the “Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015,” or S.2230, and never mind that the chief sponsor is Ted Cruz, this is vital legislation bimagesaimed at stopping Islamic extremism’s piecemeal establishment of Sharia law here at home. Abroad, you must proceed with a level of violence inflicted on major targets with such repetitive, yet often unpredictable brutality that the foundations of Islam tremble. You have this power; we will leave it to your Joint Chiefs to advise you on the particulars.  Do not go gentle.


imagesIsrael  Oh, and God wants you to mend fences with Israel. No, not your personal fences, they’re fine–but under Obama the United States has spared no effort to belittle, insult, vilify, and/or delegitimize the Jewish State while embarrassing and insulting its leadership.  Obama’s anti-Israeli exertions include his efforts to humiliate Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House, to return Israel to the indefensible borders predating the Six Days War, pour hundreds of millions of dollars into Iran’s war chest while encouraging its leadership–the proverbial Mad Mullahs–to perfect and complete construction of atomic weaponry to be used against the Jewish State, his (unsuccessful) attempt to rig the Israeli elections to result in Bibi Netanyahu’s defeat, and finally his sticking his thumb in Israel’s eye by abstaining from a UN vote crucial to Israel’s border security followed by John Kerry’s outgoing anti-semitic rant intended to disparage our most reliable ally in the Middle East and sell it down the river (which in this case would be the East River).  All of this must be turned around quickly, sir Donald–and supporting Israel wholeheartedly is the quickest way to dampen media gossip about your “Alt Right” proclivities into the bargain.



Maybe mention he’d look cooler if he wore the strap over his head instead of under his chin?

Putin  Apparently, President Obama decided not to leave office without uttering at least one sentiment that was indisputably valid. Toward this end, one assumes, he recently averred that  “Over a third of Republican voters approve of Vladimir Putin, the former head of the KGB.  Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave.” Notwithstanding the probability that Old Dutch has been spinning in his grave for the last eight years, Slow Rappin’ Preezy had a point.  Sure, his hypocrisy was at full blast, since he cheerfully played flunky to Mr. Putin throughout his first term, even begging Russia’s indulgence on the occasion of the famous live-microphone incident in which Obama could be heard begging Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to prevail upon “Vladimir” to grant him more time to further weaken American missile defense efforts, assuring the Russian that “This is my last election–after my election, I have more flexibility.”  So in other words, if the idea of pro-Russian conservatives seems a jarring departure from tradition, so do throngs of liberals abandoning a convention of irrational Russophilia dating all the way back to the New Deal in order to thunder patriotically against the bloody-fanged Slavic hordes of the East.  On the Left, of course, this is simply further evidence–if any were needed–that principles are largely adaptable to whatever pretense furthers the collectivist cause at the moment.

Teddy Kennedy loved the Russians--why, he even begged Breshnev to interfere in the 1984 election. (Actually, didn't Brezhnev get more votes than Mondale?)

Teddy Kennedy dearly loved the Russians–why, he even begged Brezhnev to interfere with the 1984 election. (Come to think of it, didn’t Brezhnev get more votes than Mondale?)

That said, Vladimir Putin, while certainly an interesting case study, is not an all around  good guy, Mr. Donald.  He is a fascinating guy, a smart guy, a guy it was fun to watch serially outwit Obama and his secretaries of state in Syria and around the world… even a  guy you might want to hang out with, ride a few bears with, shoot some Tokarev automatic pistols with– learn some Judo from–but  never mistake him for a geopolitical buddy– he’s not your pal, he’s not your ally, and no, George W. Bush never looked into his eyes and saw his soul. What he saw was sociopathy. So by all means, remain friendly toward Pooty Poot, enjoy his company, and maintain the warmest possible relationship with Russia–but never forget:  When this guy doesn’t like you, he puts polonium-210 in your borscht. Don’t drink the borscht, Mr. Donald–please!

Beats a walk in the birch woods any day, right?

Beats a walk in the birch woods any day, right?



And that’s it for this December, anyhow, Mr. PEOTUSA.  Congratulations, again! Looking forward to your inaugural–which reminds us–we haven’t gotten our invitations yet, are you sure you have the address right? Remember, it’s a cave–so it can be a bit dodgy finding us. Use Federal Express, they know where we live…they always get our copies of National Review here okay–oops–forget we said that. We’re all in your corner now, Donald Sir; and it’s going to be huge!WOOF PRINT



ZOMBIES, WITCHES, CLINTONS and KAINE! (WOOF Celebrates Birthday #4; Awash in the Demon Haunted Matrix of 2016!)

In "The horror...the horror!" forum on October 31, 2016 at 9:04 am


As we always explain at the outset of these birthday reviews, it’s once again the anniversary of WOOF’s entrance upon the cyberspacial stage, which is to say, in a less self-absorbed context, that it is once again Halloween. And as we also remark every year, it just so happens (and it truly does just so happen) that WOOF entered the blogosphere with its first hesitant and shabbily configured post on October 31, 2012. And here we are, four years later, the same dedicated band of jovial troglodytic counter-revolutionaries ensconced in our secret cave on the rocky coast of the tempestuous Atlantic, wishing ourselves another happy birthday.

Manifest horrors… 


A pretty scary decade!

As alwaysin keeping with the season, we now proceed to document the spookiest phenomena of the year to date, and this–we regret to say–means paying special attention this year to the scariest idea since demonic possession was re-popularized in the ‘70s  (which was a pretty scary decade, by the way), by which we mean Hillary Clinton becoming President. And that thought conjures a variety of terror that aficionados of the horror genre call “manifest.” In a way, it is the least sophisticated aspect of the art—the part of the movie where the monster appears and comes right at you. Sure, it’s scary, but overtly–almost cathartically so–and never quite so viscerally unnerving as the deeper psychological impact of its subtler counterpart, “implicit” terror.

TRUE FACT: Hillary's head does not actually spin around backwards--this is a misconception attributable the fact that certain lighting effects combine with the Secretary's Mao jacket collars to create the illusion of her head facing backwards.

TRUE FACT: Hillary’s head does not actually spin completely around–this is a misconception attributable to the fact that certain lighting effects combine with the Secretary’s Mao jacket collars to create the illusion of her head facing backwards.

For example, think about the parts in those teen slasher flicks where some supernaturally unvanquishable creature—say, Michael Meyers, or the other guy–the guy in the hockey mask–shows himself and begins lumbering after the screaming teenage coed, knife swishing around menacingly, massive figure looming, dead eyes beaming cold homicidality…all on the big screen….that’s manifest horror. Okay, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have a knife, but otherwise it’s the same idea. The point is that regardless of whether we’re gaping at Jason or Hillary, the threat is right before our eyes, and while our adrenaline may be pumping uncontrollably, there is at least the oddly comforting realization that this is it–a stark confrontation with a malevolent creature from the Pit.  Hillary Clinton increasingly embodies that ghastly mythologem: the malignant crone of a thousand goose-bump-raising folktales–stumbling and wobbling toward the prize as if upheld by some occult force—and we watch helplessly, captives of a waking nightmare. But as in most nightmares, something nameless exerts an even darker influence on our souls, and strikes us with an even greater fear…

And deeper fears….

The most terrifying influences are psychological—and deeply so, in ways that incorporate those equally vital elements: suspense, and trepidation. Isn’t it scarier watching the coeds wander around outdoors with their dorky candles and flashlights, looking for whatever made the creepy noise outside their cabin, than it is to watch the monster chase them? Or at least unsettling in a creepier, more insidious way? These subtler manifestations of the macabre remind us of Lovecraft’s decree that “the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is…of the unknown.”

“Hello, police? We’d like to report something creepy moving around outside–we think it might be the worldwide totalitarian socialist conspiracy that governs us!”


creep-sideAnd what dimly intuited dread gnaws at the peace of mind of everyday, red-blooded Americans, you ask? Well, okay, you didn’t really ask—but since we have a reply ready to hand, we’re going to pretend you did so we can tell you the answer. Perhaps it’s already occurred to you, or you may have jammed it so deeply into your unconscious that it only occasionally pecks at your awareness like an abreactive vulture—but the answer is: All those other Americans! Seriously, who are they?

led-three-livesTake that  TV show about sympathetic communist spies—what makes such a reprehensible formula salable outside the febrile sanctums of Hollywood? How did we get from Richard Carlson punching out commies for America in I Led Three Lives (1953-1956) to the current fare in which good-guy commies punch out properly degenerate capitalistic Americans? You may feel prompted to reply, “Aha, because so many of our fellow citizens are strangely dislocated from the American ethos; that’s what you’re getting at!” And yes, that’s part of the answer—but why do the rest of us watch? We believe a substantial subset of viewers are half-knowingly in search of answers—seeking to understand these others who come advertised as “The Americans.” And our curiosity seems justified given how many others traipsed distraitly to the polls only four years ago to re-elect the first blatantly anti-American president in our national history. Who are these people, and what on earth befell them between birth and their collective transfigurement?  What hidden force controls them; what infernal delusions motivate them?


Pod people…!

We haven’t kept count of how many seed-pods-in-the-basement jokes Glenn Beck has made recently, but they’re nothing to laugh at.  The seed-pod trope has endured in popular vernacular longer than its origins have lingered in popular memory. Just as thousands of water-cooler debaters exhort dissenting co-workers to “just keep drinking that kool-aid” without the foggiest notion of what happened in Jonestown, Guiana, so polemicists like Beck avert to “pod people” without giving any particular thought to which pop-cultural event begat the image. But here at WOOF we’ve been giving it plenty of thought. (You probably saw that coming, right?)

film1956-invasionofthebodysnatchers-originalposterThe 1956 film Invasion of the Body Snatchers originated the pod-people allusion. The average citizen may not recall this minor masterpiece from Don Siegel and Walter Wanger, but graduates of college film courses recall it. That’s because contemporary professors of the cinematic arts loftily reference the film as a blatant example of that era’s greatest evil: McCarthyism. The lectures never vary. Students learn that science fiction films of the 1950’s sought to recast the Red Menace as invaders from space, thus offering film-goers a cathartic release from their cold-war “paranoia.” Mostly, of course, this is unvarnished flapdoodle—but in the case of Body Snatchers, the pundits have a valid point. What they uniformly omit from their critiques, of course, is that McCarthy had a valid point too. He saw the Body Snatchers coming.

“Call the FBI!…Oh, wait…”

Are we seriously suggesting that a movie about seed pods from space materializing in peoples’ basements in small town America and gradually growing to resemble and ultimately replace the unsuspecting townsfolk, offers some sort of vital sociopolitical insight for our times?  Yes. In fact, what critic Leonard Maltin called the picture’s “McCarthy-era subtext” powerfully depicts the undiscerning insouciance of ordinary Americans who fail to notice friends, loved ones, and trusted authorities transforming into monotonic doppelgangers bent on subverting the very culture they inhabit. The town physician (played by the coincidentally appellated Kevin McCarthy) notices, but he can’t get anyone to believe him. Aware that the pod people replace humans while they sleep, the doctor fills his pockets with Benzedrine, grabs his extremely beautiful if incongruously British fiancée (Dana Wynter) and makes a break for it.


Sad to say Dana dozes off for a moment and she awakens a gosh darned communist pod person from space– but we still love her.

“Yes, it’s an emergency!”

Dana must have forgotten to take her Benzedrine because she falls asleep and gets co-opted by the space commies, but (Kevin) McCarthy escapes to a neighboring town where he  explains the situation to law enforcement. Understandably, the cops send in a psychiatrist who is about to ship our hero off to a padded cell when suddenly, compelling evidence turns up from another source that verifies his story. The last line in the movie is spoken by the suddenly-persuaded psychiatrist who snatches up the office phone and thunders, “Operator, get me the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, it’s an emergency!

Future Democrat voters.

Future Democrat voters.

Today, the creepiest mystery haunting America is the rationally incomprehensible transformation of nearly half the population into what less gracious blogs might call brainwashed, zombified stooges. Who are these pod citizens who pursue their petty amusements while the Constitution is mocked, the President legislates, Supreme Court Justices toy with their fundamental liberties, and our exchequer is bled dry? Who are the Americans shrugging indifferently as their health care is sabotaged, their children rendered clueless by Common Core, their safety jeopardized by government-approved racial strife, their Joint Chiefs replaced with sycophantic careerists, their Internet handed off to a consortium of thugs, and their economy deliberately incapacitated? Do these people have seed pods in their basements? Are they the hapless victims of some sinister mind-control device? Oh, and about that….


In case this segment frightens you, the liberal media have even produced a book proving there is no such thing as the liberal media--you may find it soothing!

In case this segment frightens you, the liberal media have even produced a book proving there is no such thing as the liberal media–you may find it comforting.

Speaking of sinister mind control,the liberal media receive this year’s thing-that-would-not-die award. Of all the cultural monstrosities that beleaguer us, they remain the most conspicuously undead. The final phases of journalistic decomposition, like the final throes of rabies, seem to be the most frenzied and delirious. True, this may be the last major election the media can so shamelessly skew. Surveys suggest that only 6 percent of Americans trust the news nowadays, and (mirabile dictu!) Democrats trust it more than all other categories of respondents. The willingness of pod-voters to cast off the blessings of liberty in exchange for statism’s illusory gewgaws may be at least partly ascribable to massive doses of daily media misdirection.

Runner up: Carlos Danger rides again!

Runner up: Carlos Danger rides again!

Today, even if some freshly aroused citizen were to suddenly take note of the creeping terror at his doorstep, snatch up his phone and demand, ““Operator, get me the Federal Bureau of Investigation!” What good would it do? When James Comey proves unwilling to pursue justice if the result might embarrass the Clinton political machine; and subsequent revelations reveal that the Bureau’s chief function during the Hillary investigation consisted of handing out immunity to her accomplices like party favors–it becomes obvious that even America’s vaunted G-Men have slumbered, and fallen victim to the Body Snatchers. But this brings us to RUNNER UP for our thing-that-would-not-die categorythe perennial Anthony Weiner! If we can credit the latest news flashes, Director Comey now seems poised to redeem his organization by renewing the Clinton investigation; and this because “new evidence” has appeared—and the “new evidence” comes, apparently, by way of the Bureau’s investigation of the Weiner scandal–meaning that Hillary may be sucked into “Weinergate” through Huma Abedin’s cell phone. And that, Woofeteers, is a sentence that could only have been written this Halloween!


It takes a GLOBAL village?

Cardinal Sarah--another one of those uppity out-of-towners lecturing America's

Cardinal Sarah–another one of those uppity out-of-towners who doesn’t understand progress.

At May’s National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., Cardinal Robert Sarah opined that in the United States, “God is being eroded, eclipsed,liquidated, in the name of ‘tolerance’.” As evidence, Sarah cited “the legalization of same sex marriage, the obligation to accept contraception within health care programs, and ‘bathroom bills’ that allow men to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms.”  And as if that weren’t offensive enough to the sensibilities of his contemporaries, the Cardinal ended with an even more intolerable microaggression, asking “Should not a biological man use the men’s restroom?” But then, Cardinal Sarah is from Guinea, West Africa, and can be forgiven the archaic bias or two.  It is peculiar, isn’t it, how often a proper understanding of multiculturalism seems lost on foreigners!


Yes, globalism’s mission to spread the joys of corporatist collusion, U.N. corruption and “social justice” by fiat,  may be threatened by a handful of theological reactionaries. Fay Voshell, for instance, argued in the September 4th American Thinker that globalism constitutes a form of secular religion conducing toward a “world order in which all men pay allegiance to elite priests who rule over a World City without national borders.”  Demonstrating a theological mind set completely at odds with America’s mainstream churches, Voshell went on to argue that such concepts are, in fact, objectionable.  Wallace Henley, senior associate pastor of 2nd Baptist Church in Houston, Texas, called “the global governance scenario” “terrifying,” while Pastor Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in San Diego went so far as to call globalism “demonic at its core.” Globalism, it seems, has a bitter-clinger problem.

Professor Rabkin, contra mundi.so to speak.

Professor Rabkin, contra mundi.so to speak.

Not all opponents of globalism are Bible-belt rustics, however.  George Mason University Law School Professor Jeremy Rabkin–who is immune to accusations of fundamentalist dementia by virtue of being Jewish, which means that people like Hillary can only deprecate his heritage privately or in emails–published The Case for Sovereignty: Why The World Should Welcome American Independence, in which he argues for American exceptionalism, a concept uniformly appalling to Leftists.  More to the point, Rabkin told an interviewer that globalism is “a little creepy, a little uncanny. It’s basically saying ‘We are going to organize the world in a way that establishes an artificial consensus.’ It’s not enough to say it’s undemocratic. It’s threatening; it’s almost demonic.”

The devil, you say!

Well, what if it’s not almost demonic? In 2004, an official decree from Pope John Paul II instructed every Catholic diocese to appoint a qualified exorcist.  Pope Francis, despite his reputation for exhibiting dishearteningly progressive views on sundry matters, is known to support the rite of exorcism wholeheartedly. In fact, Francis himself performed an informal exorcism on a wheelchair-bound parishioner two years ago. What’s up?


SPOILER ALERT!  Linda Blair remembered a lot in Exorcist II, although Richard Burton was drunk throughout filming and claimed not to remember anything. Actually, Linda looks a lot better here than the film ever did.

hillary use itWe have a very secularized society in which, more than in the past, there’s the tendency to open the doors to occultism,” explains Father Pedro Barrajon, director of the Vatican’s Instituto Sacerdos. Fortunately there are experts on hand like Italian priest Gabriele Amorth, who has personally cast out 160,000 demons and heads the Catholic International Association of Exorcists—did you know that was even a thing? Amorth’s organization agrees that demonic activity is on the rise—and warns against such subtle seductions as ouija boards…and  yoga.  Suddenly Hillary’s rush to delete those 30,000 yoga-related emails makes sense!

Fr. Amorth believes priests should exorcise frequently.

Fr. Amorth believes priests should exorcise regularly.

Father Amorth went public earlier this month with concerns that his Church may not be able to hold the line against Lucifer.  In Italy, at least, young priests are quailing at the thought of performing exorcisms, declaring the process too terrifying. “There are only nine of us left and many more are needed,” Amorth lamented. “We need other priests like me to meet the needs of so many families.”

Fortunately, Americans are made of sterner stuff.  Sociologist Michael Cuneo insists that “Exorcism is more readily available today in the United States than perhaps ever before,” adding that “there are at least five or six hundred evangelical exorcism ministries in operation today, and quite possibly two or three times this many.” But to date, only Mexico has undergone a national exorcism. Last May, Spain’s noted exorcism expert, Fr José Antonio Fortea, joined forces with Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, Archbishop Emeritus of Guadalajara in performing the rare “exorcismo magno,” an effort to deliver the entire country from demonic possession.  Should the United States contemplate such a self-administered cleansing? Or just build a wall in case the effort in Mexico fails?


Demons even go viral in sonograms—like the one featured in The Daily Mail last January.   The sonogram is real, although the mother prefers to remain anonymous. The Mail’s readers claimed to see a demonic entity watching the developing baby.  WOOF’s Readers may be relieved to learn that several authenticated sonograms have also appeared in which an image of Jesus was detected, (see example below for reassurance).


ISIS actually blew up the original temple of Baal last August because Baal was not a Muslim. The UN called the action a war crime, and then broke for tea..

ISIS actually blew up the original temple last August because Baal isn’t a Muslim. The UN called the action “a war crime,” and then broke for lunch.

And as if  all that weren’t weird enough, author Michael Snyder warns that near-exact replicas of the arch  over the entrance to the Temple of Baal in Palmyra, Syria, have been constructed in Times Square and  Trafalgar Square. Reuters confirmed the simultaneous unveilings, timed, many believe, to coincide with the occult festival of Baal. Sources including Breitbart and O’Reilly have featured reports about the twin arches, which Snyder fears will serve as “giant welcome signs for the Antichrist.” “From this point forward,”  he predicts, ” things are going to get much, much stranger.” We at WOOF are prepared to go out on a limb, and endorse Snyder’s prediction!

There have been signs!

Meanwhile, the baffling fascination insects display for socialist totalitarians-manque continues to dominate our “signs” category. Not only did bees pester Obama everywhere he went during his first term–he seemed incapable of keeping flies from landing on his face during speeches. Many dismissed this as happenstance, and sensibly reasoned that if insects were sending  other-worldly messages by swarming Obama, they would presumably target other progressive reprobates. This quieted our nerves at WOOF until the second Hillary/Trump debate. Hillary no sooner began screaking about her absurd plan to enforce a Syrian “no-fly zone,” than a fly planted itself determinedly above her left eye. Naturally this led us to consult Grayson Moseley Straith, WOOF’s own paranormal adviser, regarding the portent of these manifestations. Grayson replied that evidence of demonic involvement would be lacking, “unless the individuals made no effort to swat or wipe away the insects–as though powerless to do so.”  So now we’re really worried!

Guess who!

The New Yorker takes a surprisingly incisive editorial stance on the matter....

The New Yorker took a surprisingly enlightened editorial stance on the matter….

Even worse! The Antichrist is Barack Hussein Obama. We didn’t say that, Michelle Bachmann did–or at least she pretty much did. Check her out here. The beautiful conservative and former House member insists that Obama’s next ambition is to assume the top slot at the United Nations “and become King of the World.”  Despite the high regard in which we hold the congresswoman, WOOF continues to believe that Rappin’ Preezy is too sissified and dorky to qualify as the Antichrist.  For that matter, the United Nations is pretty sissified and dorky too…so we maintain that while Obama may be possessed,  he is almost certainly not the Antichrist. We qualify our opinion only because SNOPES bothered to rebut Bachmann’s claims at great length, thereby lending  them a modicum of credence.

Annual Halloween WITCH HUNT update!

High Commissioner Benjamin--further proof if any were needed that the Empire is finished.

High Commissioner Benjamin–further proof if any were needed that the British Empire is finished.

Our yearly witch-hunt update begins in sub-West Africa where the Republic of Ghana is rounding up thousands of alleged witches and stuffing them into internment camps. British High Commissioner Jon Benjamin felt prompted to demand the camps be closed. Obviously a man with little regard for multiculturalism, Benjamin bridled at suggestions he should respect local beliefs, rejoining, “Personally, I believe in the 21st Century it’s time to say there is no such thing as a witch and to decry the practice of using such a term to dehumanise vulnerable women.”  To what extent the Commissioner’s comments may have offended Wiccans is not immediately clear, but they made no discernible impression on the Ghanaians.

TRUE FACT: Despite their negative image, many witches are disturbingly attractive and should not be viewed naked without proper precautions!

TRUE FACT: Despite their popular image as hags and crones, many witches are disturbingly attractive and should not be viewed naked except by trained professionals!

Socialists everywhere may wish to pay special heed to the Republic of Benin this year, where the government announced that witchcraft explains why some people are more successful than others, and proposed state-sponsored counter-magical efforts to ensure an even playing field for its citizens.  Perhaps “income inequality” is banishable by magic? President Yahya Jammeh of Gambia, meanwhile, complains that he’s the target of evil spells. Despite Amnesty International’s objections, Gambia has already arrested over 1,000 witches suspected of anti-Jammehian spellweaving. Not to be outdone, Saudi Arabia has now created a total of nine anti-witchcraft bureaus which, according to the Arab News, have “achieved remarkable success.” In a recent case, witch-busters broke into the home of a suspected sorceress who, according to authorities, was caught in the act of casting a spell while naked, but eluded arrest by flying out her window, “like a bird!” Her flying abilities apparently gave way a few blocks from her apartment and she plunged through a rooftop, landing near a bed filled with sleeping children. There, the Witch Police found her unconscious and cuffed her before she could regain her senses and fly off.

Actual Saudi TV image of fallen witch. Fortunately, she's okay--disappointingly, she appears clothed. Her subsequent fate is unknown.

Actual Saudi TV image of fallen witch, stunned, but unrepentant.

According to the Times of India for March 17th, Agra played host toa horrifying incident, [in which] a man, who suspected his sister-in-law of practicing witchcraft and black magic on his family, chopped off her head with a sharp edged chopper in village Gadhia in the Mainpuri district of Uttar Pradesh on Thursday.”  The man, one Uttam (making him Uttam from Uttar, but we digress), blamed his sister-in-law, Dhandevi, the deceased alleged witch, for performing rites of sorcery leading to the death of his brother Thakur. We cannot help mentioning, in the interest of objectivity, that the Times’ most upvoted comment regarding the incident came from one Harrison H. McDonald, who remarked:


Cackling Witch” (stock photo)

“The fellow could have been correct. There are lots of witches flying around out there. One of them is running for President of the United States.”

And while we note that Mr. McDonald did not specify a candidate, evidence that Hillary is an occultic witch of the Illuminati is abundantly available at various Internet locations like this one. And lest you dismiss such conjecture out of hand, gentle readers, consider that the international belief in witchcraft remains surprisingly robust. Even in the civilized West a poll of Canadians and British subjects found that 13 percent believed in witches, while almost a quarter of Americans do. Naturally, WOOF made an exhaustive effort to locate survey data indicating what percentage of likely voters would knowingly support a witch’s presidential candidacy, but surprisingly, no such studies exist.


“You mean, like Democrats?”

ghost-breakersindexZombies are bigger than ever, of course– which continues to baffle those of us who thought they hit their stride when they recorded “She’s Not There”– but films, TV programs, and video games remain infested with the creatures. So what, exactly, is a zombie? Our favorite description derives from the 1940 comedy classic Ghost Breakers. In the film, Bob Hope and co-star Paulette Goddard find themselves in the tropics and beset by zombies. Baffled, they ask a local (played by Richard Carlson) for advice. Carlson explains that zombies have been raised from the dead. “That sounds horrible!” Goddard gasps. “It’s worse than horrible,” Carlson tells her,”because a zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes, walking around blindly, with dead eyes–following orders, not knowing what they do–not caring.” Hearing this, Hope asks “You mean like Democrats?”

The zombie Democrat theory got a boost of sorts when Hillary continued campaigning after her death was announced by ABC news.  On the evening of Hillary’s panicky exit from the 9/11 memorial followed by her sidewalk collapse, anchorman Joe Torres began his six o’clock news broadcast on New York’s WABC by saying, “Good evening. We begin with Hillary Clinton’s death.”  Adding to the episode’s surreal atmosphere, the program’s co-anchor continued smiling placidly through Torres’s dire pronouncement, as though she considered it settled history. Pressured for the facts, WABC dismissed Torres’s shocking lead as “a misstatement,” but rumor held that in reality, Torres had departed from contemporary journalistic standards and blurted out the truth.  The rumor gained stature when a tweet materialized purporting to show a screen shot of ABC’s webpage confirming that Clinton “died under hospital treatment at Montefiore Medical Hospital.”  In a rational era, the subsequent inability of anybody to locate such a posting on ABC’s site might have sufficed to discredit the tweet as a hoax; but in Obama’s America–where liberal news networks notoriously expunge or dramatically alter any website items displeasing to their DNC overlords–the post was rumored to have been stricken on orders from the campaign.

Cruel hoax, or yet another example of accidental journalism?

Cruel hoax, or accidental journalism?

Rumors quickly multiplied, including the notion that the woman who emerged feeling “great!” from Chelsea Clinton’s apartment was Hillary’s body double.  Twitter and the blogosphere blazed with support for this theory, mostly highlighting the putative differences in Mrs. Clinton’s figure and/or physiognomy before and after her widely viewed face-plant into her limousine. But even more ghoulish possibilities haunt our thoughts in the WOOF cave. After all, could a body double replace Hillary and also stumble like her? Screech like her? Pop her eyes out or cough like her, or phrase obviously focus-grouped rhetoric in those same painfully artificial tones?  It seems impossible. Which brings us to…..


colkidsindexWhat if Hillary recently underwent a head transplant? No, really. The internationally-renowned neurosurgeon Sergio Canavero (this year’s recipient of our Colander-of-Doom award) proposed the transplantation of human heads several years ago, explaining the process in a series of scientifically credible monographs detailing his plans  to re-animate lifeless bodies (after attaching his patients’ heads to them) with massive jolts of electrical current. In keeping with this markedly Gothic paradigm, Dr. Canavero turned to Germany for funding. “Today, I am officially asking Germany to help me realize the first cephalosomatic anastomosis in human history on German soil,” he announced, imploring Germans to “live up to what you are, a country that has set standards in medicine and technology for centuries.” Okay, that’s a little creepy.

Famed Italian neurosurgeon Sergio Canavera upon receiving word that Germany will sponsors his head transplants--what could possibly go wrong?

Famed Italian neurosurgeon Sergio Canavero receiving word that Germany will sponsor his head transplants–note his telltale Hillary-style  Mao jacket!

But even as Canavero petitioned the Fatherland, a seemingly unrelated  news item surfaced in an unlikely venue. The Washington Post reviewed Hillary’s misdeeds as Secretary of State in a manner shockingly close to the truth, concluding that “rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization [her own Foundation] that has solicited financial support from foreign governments.” And of the governments named, the United Arab Emirates and Germany figured most prominently. And since no thinking person would consider having her head transplanted in the United Arab Emirates, that leaves Germany, whose financiers’  interactions with the Clinton Cartel almost certainly include machinations that could prove ruinous if exposed. In such an atmosphere, a mutual willingness to grant occasional favors is understandable. One such favor might involve an affirmative response to Dr. Canavero’s seemingly ridiculous demand for funding. And indeed, just when things looked bleakest for cephalosomatic anastomosis, German funds were made available.  True, WOOF has not yet obtained specific evidence that Mrs.Clinton was secretly transported to Germany for a head transplant, but like James Comey–our investigation continues.


The unquiet dead…


Newman (premorbid), and large flower (background).

And lest you suppose, gentle readers, that zombies and politics never mix, consider how often dead people win elections! Take the case of Kansas City Councilwoman Hila “Dutch” Bucher Newman (D.) who ruled as Grande Dame of Missouri’s liberal establishment for decades.  Mrs Newman died of old age–thrilled that she had survived to see Hillary Clinton (whom she eulogized routinely) receive the presidential nomination.  And despite nationwide torrents of dutifully hagiographic testimonials lamenting her demise,  Councilwoman Dutch Newman was re-elected  on Aug. 3rd, one week after dying at age 95.  Nobody, apparently, dared suggest she relinquish her seat.


Boggs, flying high even in absentia

Also in Missouri, back in 2000, a lifeless Governor Mel Carnahan (D) defeated incumbent U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (R). The Governor was known to have died in a plane crash a month earlier, but he somehow managed to soldier on, winning the seat from Ashcroft who was certifiably alive, although never ostentatiously so. And in keeping with our Halloween missing-aircraft tradition, what about House Majority Leader Hale Boggs and Rep. Nick Begich? The plane carrying both politicians disappeared over Alaska on Oct. 16th, 1972–and not a trace of them or their plane was ever found despite exhaustive searching.  And if you think that’s spooky, consider this–not one, but both missing Democrats won re-election. Coincidence?

Florida Democrat Earl K. Wood died several weeks before the 2012 election yet managed to secure a twelfth term as Orange County’s Tax Collector in Orlando, Florida.  In 2010, Carl Geary won a landslide Mayoral victory in Tracy City, Tennessee, despite dying a month earlier. In 2009, Mayor Harry Stonebraker (D), was laid to rest weeks before he was swept to re-election by 90 percent of the vote in Winfield, Missouri. In 2008, Patsy Mink died of pneumonia one week after winning the Democratic primary for Hawaii’s second congressional district, but mysteriously remained on the ballot and won hands down, as it were.

Theodore S. Weiss--endorsed by the NYT despite being dead.

Theodore S. Weiss–endorsed by the NYT despite being dead.

Back in 1992 the New York Times endorsed Ted Weiss for re-election to congress from Manhattan’s West Side. The article acknowledged that Weiss was dead, having succumbed to heart failure days earlier, but encouraged voters to support his ticket anyway inasmuch as Weiss’s opponent was “a right-wing extremist.”  In those days, of course, the Times had subscribers–many of whom filed obediently to the poles handing Weiss a post-morbid walkaway (so to speak) of 54,168 votes to the hapless extremist’s 7,560.  The grisly question naturally presents itself–how many dead Democrat candidates are elected by majorities of equally dead Democrat voters?

zombie1Alarm was raised earlier this year concerning this very issue when J. Christian Adam, former Voting Section Attorney at the US Department of Justice, confirmed that “Dead people are voting!” As evidence, Adam cited a Pew Charitable Trust review of national voting roles that turned up nearly four million dead people who were deemed likely voters, many of whom appear to exercise their franchise regularly from beyond the grave. Astonishingly, irrespective of their politics when alive, dead people almost always vote a straight Democratic ticket—is that because their brains are decaying?


Madonna, vowing to make the dead grateful?

And as a postscript to these concerns, surely the emerging data cast an entirely different light on Madonna’s mid-October vow to perform oral sex on everyone who votes for Hillary Clinton this November–the sheer numbers alone seem daunting, and then there’s the whole abuse-of-a-corpse problem. But on the other hand, perhaps she intends to breathe new life (see what we did there?) into the long-foundering Horror Porn genre.


evil clown

Creepy clown sightings…third annual report! 

We at WOOF have been way out in front when it comes to creepy clowns. We began warning you about them in our 2nd birthday post back in 2014, and yet there are more of them now than ever–sort of like liberal celebrities. But the important distinction is that creepy clowns are elusive–and considerably less funny. And now, actual non-creepy clowns are in an uproar about the phenomenon.  In fact, we now have an official statement from the World Clown Association to the effect that “People dressed as horror clowns are not ‘real clowns.’ They are taking something innocent and wholesome and perverting it to create fear in their audience.” Accordingly, scores of professional clowns are preparing to participate in a Clown Lives Matter demonstration [which sounds clownishly microaggressive, but who are we to judge?] Nationally-respected talk show host Howie Carr, whose probity we deem unassailable), reports the WCA issued a statement denying that Democrat vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine is one of them. Kaine meanwhile has yet to address charges that he may be a creepy clown, and WOOF’s inquiries to his office remain (we think tellingly) unanswered. Creepy clowns, meanwhile, are spreading through more states, apparently undeterred by the Worldwide Clown Association’s reprimands.


An authentic creepy clown photo verified by WOOF’s own Science and the Paranormal Directorate which affirms the photo shows real spooky clowns–not suspended models, inflated figures, or members of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Aw, see--now who did that? Some mean people on Twitter, probably--haters!

Tim Kaine–Aw, see–now who did that? Some mean people on Twitter, probably–haters!

Vigilant authorities in Alabama warn that anyone complicit in that state’s outbreak of clown appearances will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law—whichever law that might be.  In Dublin, Georgia, clowns were implicated in at least one auto accident. Police Chief Tim Chatman told local station 11 Alive that “it was a family member that reported it several hours later — that it was the reason why this accident occurred; because someone was in the road dressed like a clown.” Pressed for details, the Chief added,“We can’t say for certain that someone hasn’t seen anyone looking like a clown.”

v2-wascoclownWhen Lebanon, Tennessee experienced a series of clown encounters, the Tennessee Highway Patrol responded swiftly. One Coffee County student claimed she was attacked by one of the baffling bozos, although the story proved difficult to confirm in the absence of the clown. The Highway Patrol’s official bulletin on the subject encouraged citizens to be on the lookout for “suspicious clowns.” And clowns fitting that description turned up soon thereafter in neighboring South Carolina and Kentucky. In South Carolina, citizens of Greenville report a “clown flap” which began on August 21st  when coulrophobic callers lit up the switchboard at the Greenville police station.  The police were not amused—indeed, the Greenville police chief assured concerned residents that “clowning around will not be tolerated [because] It’s illegal. It’s dangerous. And it’s inappropriate…” and yet inappropriate clowns continue to manifest themselves in South Carolina and at least twelve other states. This has, you may be sure, drawn the attention of the Obama administration (also beset by clowns) which announced only this month that spooky clowns are “sinister,” and to be “taken seriously.” A spokesman for the President told reporters that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security “have been consulted on how to handle the scare.”  So, one assumes the President is focused on the problem like a laser, and a line in the sand may shortly be drawn. Despite these reassuring measures, a newly-released poll from Chapman University shows that 42 percent of Americans are afraid of clowns, whereas only 32 percent are afraid of climate change. We bet the overlap is considerable.

America strikes back!

“Not funny!”

Meanwhile, citizens have taken matters into their own hands, which is usually more efficient in the age of Obama.  During a creepy-clown outbreak in Athens, Georgia, an eleven-year-old girl was discovered with a knife in school. According to police the girl insisted she was carrying the knife “to protect her and her family because she had heard the stories about clowns jumping out of the woods and attacking children.”  The story fails to recount how police dealt with the young lady–presumably they commended her civic-mindedness.

When three creepy clowns showed up in Compton, California, they were confronted by angry locals, one of whom dispensed with formalities and landed a right cross on the nearest clown’s jaw. This sent the harlequins scampering–which is difficult in clown shoes. On October 5th, a creepy clown crept up on a car only to be assaulted by the occupants who beat him nearly unconscious with a baseball bat before discovering he was a friend attempting to frighten them. (Better safe, we think, than sorry!) On the same evening, a creepy clown confronted a woman in Auburn, Maine, formed a gloved hand to resemble a gun, and whispered “Bang!”  Maine, however, is a legal-carry state, and when the 49-year-old woman pulled her 9 mm automatic, the clown chose the better part of valor and beat feet.




Amazingly lifelike, seasonably terrifying, yet oddly unsalable!

Every fourth Halloween, newscasters rush around interviewing costume shop clerks, revisiting the decades-old hypothesis that mask sales predict election results. This year, we haven’t seen any such stories, possibly because “Trump is the most costume-marketable candidate in history,” according to Courtland Hickey, general manager of Chicago Costume. Thus, the Trumpster is this category’s clear winner. Oddly, despite Hillary leading the polls throughout September and most of October, trick-or-treaters are shunning her masks and stocking up on Trump costumes. Also, where is the fashion craze Mrs. Clinton’s day-glo Mao-Tse-Tung outfits should have ignited? The media unanimously hail her wardrobe as “trendy,” but–where’s the trend? Why aren’t progressive women bursting into toney fashion boutiques, demanding pantsuits à la  Hillary? Not since Braniff Airlines painted its passenger jets all sorts of voguish colors (before going bankrupt) has so much eyeball-busting variety been available to the fashion-conscious socialist, yet to date, only Angela Merkel seems to have caught the spirit.


Stronger together? So why aren’t feminists everywhere disporting themselves in outfits like these–from the ‘Hillary Line’ of Ernst Stavro Blofeld’s fall collection?


aliens among us!John Podesta is our 2016 winner in this category. Bill Clinton’s former Chief of Staff and Hillary’s current campaign chairman is a longtime UFO enthusiast, but that, as the Clintons like to say, is old news. Recent revelations from Wikileaks, however, expose the full intensity of Podesta’s obsession. By his own admission, Podesta tried, during Bill Clinton’s second term, to persuade the Air Force and CIA to allow the White House access to files on Roswell, Area 51, and other saucerological mysteries–but the military-intelligence establishment wouldn’t budge.  Recent Asange revelations make clear that Podesta’s interest in ufology only intensified as a result, and drew him into an utterly bizarre exchange of emails, beginning in 2015, with one Tom DeLonge, the lead singer for the rock band Blink-182, which nobody at WOOF ever heard of, although that’s not particularly damning.  At any rate, DeLonge persuaded Podesta that he, DeLonge, was receiving secret information from at least “ten  highly placed sources inside the U.S. government,” each of whom seemed a virtual wellspring of deeply classified UFO secrets.

Tom DeLonge--John Podesta's personal adviser on ufological affairs.

Tom DeLonge–John Podesta’s personal adviser on UFO affairs.

Bask for a moment in the wonderful ridiculousness of this, Woofketeers! The President’s chief of staff demands facts about flying saucers on behalf of the nation’s Commander in Chief,  and is told by the nation’s military and intelligence elites to pound sand.  Yet these same elites can barely restrain their enthusiasm for handing top-secret UFO files over to  a second-tier rock singer whose familiarity with government seems confined to having once recorded a song entitled “Enema of the State,” and a whirlwind bromance with John Kerry. Following a nervous breakdown, Delonge found himself suddenly in awe of Kerry’s “brilliance” and tagged along on the Massachusetts Senator’s stumble-bum 2004 presidential campaign after which he proclaimed Kerry had changed his life. His band seemed to agree: they expelled DeLonge, telling reporters he’d become “paranoid and mentally ill,”  a diagnosis that, although clinically tautological, seems otherwise shrewd.

Tom, John, and the Fragile Divisions


Delonge, after prolonged exposure to John Kerry.

DeLonge’s recent emails to Podesta reveal his acquisition of two “military advisers” whom he implores Podesta to meet, adding “I think you will find them very interesting, as they were principal leadership relating to our sensitive topic. Both were in charge of most fragile [sic] divisions, as it [sic] relates to Classified Science and DOD topics. Other words [sic], these are A-Level officials.”  As Podesta’s replies have yet to leak, we can only imagine his jubilation upon realizing his luck. Here he was, corresponding with the only rock burnout on earth who possessed his own military advisor (in fact two such advisors) and even better: advisors fresh from commanding the nation’s “most fragile divisions.” Better still, Podesta is collaborating with DeLonge on a UFO documentary scheduled for release in 2017–in time to be suitably mocked in WOOF’s next annual birthday post.


Mysterious Disappearances….

ameliaEveryone knows that the strangest disappearance since WOOF’s last anniversary was over 30,000 yoga items and wedding invitations vanishing from Hillary Clinton’s private email server(s). This mystery so preoccupied conservative media that its equally mysterious corollary, the disappearance of any trenchant reporting on the subject by anyone in the mainstream media, went largely unremarked. And besides all those yoga emails vanishing into cyberspace, recently leaked FBI notes reveal that two boxes containing Hillary’s printed emails also vanished!  When the State Department’s Office of Information Programs (IPS) first audited them, fourteen boxes of emails were stacked at Secretary Clinton’s Friendship Heights office awaiting FBI examination–but when agents arrived to retrieve the boxes, there were only twelve (insert Twilight Zone music here).  Ever alert, the agents promptly spotted this subtle discrepancy and moved swiftly to detain an IPS official for questioning. Under pressure, the IPS functionary revealed that it was “difficult to say what could have happened.” which apparently mollified the agents, who departed with the twelve boxes that remained.  Shortly afterwards, however, an additional mystery cropped up when all references to the two missing boxes included in the FBI’s official report also completely vanished!


Just as eerily, Julian Assange’s Internet access disappeared without a trace, leaving the Wikileaker temporarily incommunicado at London’s Ecuadorian Embassy where he remains a virtual prisoner. Wikileaks officials insisted Assange’s connection was “intentionally severed by a state party,” which reminds us that Hillary wanted to “drone” Wikileaks while she was Secretary of State. Luckily for Wikileaks, Mrs. Clinton fell during the subsequent Benghazi crisis, bumped her head, and forgot nearly everything she’d said or done while in office, thus her animosity toward Asange was almost certainly erased.  So, we don’t think Mrs. Clinton severed Assange’s link. First, by her own admission, she knows nothing about computers. Second, the leaks were clearly of no concern to her campaign, as demonstrated by the DNC’s assurances that the leaked  anti-semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Latino, anti-American, and anti-Bernie messages were “no big deal.” Obviously, then, Hillary lacked both motive and means.


Escaping Certain Death….

indexEach October we review predictions of imminent doom, so our readers can plan accordingly– but first, let’s examine the ones that missed.  We begin with thanks offered a merciful God, for fending off, again this year, the horrors of Global Warming. This year marked a major milestone given Al Gore’s Oscar-winning prediction that major coastal cities would be submerged by 2016. Unremitting super hurricanes, due to render our seaports uninhabitable,were equally conspicuous in their absence, just as confirmed reports of drowned polar bears remained constant at last year’s level of zero, perhaps because the levels of arctic ice are actually increasing.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterrey, California, solemnly foretold the complete absence of polar ice by 2016. Similarly, celebrated climatologist Peter  Wadhams of Cambridge University produced the widely-heralded book A Farewell to Ice, predicting the complete disappearance of arctic ice, even as figures released this September show 21 percent more polar ice than in 2012. We could easily proceed to name dozens of equally-respected experts who fingered this year as mankind’s last opportunity to glimpse icebergs or snow, but we are too overcome with relief at our deliverance.  Deus magnus est.

The Prophet Micah--so misunderstood--it's probably a good thing he's minor.

The Prophet Micah–so misunderstood–it’s probably a good thing he’s minor.

Not only did Hurricane Matthew fall miserably short of expectations–we also survived the entire month of May, which was fraught with peril! For instance,the planet Mercury entered alignment  with the Sun and Earth on May 9th. True this happens thirteen times each century, but the website Prophetico insisted that this time Mercury meant business. A new lunar cycle reduced the moon to a crescent at the apex of Mercury’s alignment–so as Prophetico put it: “The moon itself has been turned into a sickle, so literally turning Orion’s club into a mace as he strikes the lion’s whelp along the cheek, during the transit [of Mercury].” Supposedly this meant worldwide destruction, and/or the return of Christ, as allegedly predicted in the book of Micah—only evidently not. Suffice it that we survived to confront the deathly curse of the Blue Moon.

Black and blue….

blueimagesThe Blue Moon was scheduled to destroy us all on May 21st because it was the fourth full moon in one season—so psychics and tarot readers took to the Internet announcing the end of days. Mercifully, the Blue Moon came and went without incident. But this left us at the mercy of the Black Moon. As opposed to the Blue Moon, the Black Moon of September 27th was the result of the regular moon’s illuminated hemisphere passing under Earth’s shadow. Worse, this particular black moon followed fast upon the heels of a ‘ring of fire’ solar eclipse, which is why legions of astrologers, Internet prophets and religionists predicted worldwide destruction, and/or the return of Christ. As readers are presumably aware, neither event ensued.  This allowed humankind time to catch a breath or two before confronting a far more scientifically supportable problem: Aliens!


Hawking, the Inscrutable


TRUE FACT: Despite his countless commitments and intellectual undertakings, Dr. Hawking remains a lifelong fan of the original Mickey Mouse Club!

Indeed, no less an authority on absolutely everything than the ubiquitous Stephen Hawking once again cautioned earth’s inhabitants against “announcing our presence to any alien civilizations that might be out there, especially those that could be more technologically advanced.” If our radio telescopes finally document intelligent signals from some distant planet, Hawking advises “hang up!” because “Meeting an advanced civilization could be like Native Americans encountering Columbus. That didn’t turn out so well.”

earthvsdownloadWOOF understands that Stephen Hawking is far too intelligent for those of us hobbled by less stratified intellects to fully comprehend, but we are confessedly bollixed. First, we wish Dr. Hawking would explain whether we should continue crediting his concerns that AI (artificial intelligence) will shortly contrive to exterminate mankind, or whether these worries are now superannuated by threats of extraterrestrials following our radio transmissions here and invading, or whether these events are expected to occur simultaneously. Moreover, if contacting alien civilizations invites catastrophe, why is Dr. Hawking enthusiastically promoting his “Breakthrough: Starshot” initiative, which intends–suicidally, one might infer–to launch “nanocraft” packed with news about our planet in the direction of neighboring star systems?


“No, moron! This is some Godforsaken place called Guanahani–so like I kept telling you, Fort Lauderdale’s that way!”

Also, we humbly implore Dr. Hawking to share whatever groundbreaking research he possesses linking “Native Americans” with Columbus. Until now, we thought it embarrassingly fatuous of American Indian activists to assemble each Columbus Day to bemoan the exploitation, rape, and murder of their ancestors by Columbus, mainly because Columbus never set foot in North America–indeed, the only “Indians” Columbus “discovered,” were inhabitants of the Bahamas, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, none of whom, ironically, bothers protesting the fact.  But if Hawking can place Columbus in, say, Beaufort, or Port St. Lucie, we stand ready to rethink the entire matter!


They’re here….

And who would know more about extraterrestrial life forms than a real live--well--recently alive--astronaut?

And who would know more about extraterrestrial life  than a real live–well–recently alive–astronaut?

Finally, it seems strange that so many scientists continue devoting their energies to intergalactic outreach when the aliens appear to be here already.  No less an authority than astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to walk on the moon, unveiled the alien presence in 2009 when he told the National Press Club,”We are being visited. It is now time to put away this embargo of truth about the alien presence. I call upon our government to open up … and become a part of this planetary community.”  Obviously, the government wasn’t interested, but shortly before his death earlier this year, Dr. Mitchell revealed that,“ETs [have] been attempting to keep us from going to war and help create peace on Earth,” adding that ET is “the highest form of intelligence that works directly with God…and will not tolerate any form of military violence on the planet or in space.”  Admittedly, these assertions are difficult to square with the monumental levels of military violence engulfing our planet–but the aliens may not be infallible, after all.  Researcher Jenny Randles documents more than thirty cases of flying saucer crashes around the world in her book, UFO Retrievals: The Recovery of Alien Spacecraft,  so the aliens may be working out a few bugs in their own equipment.

Of course, after she spoke to Gort, it looked bad for Patricia Neal for a few minutes, but it all turned out okay and 20th Century Fox got its money shot.

Even after she spoke to Gort, it looked bad for Patricia Neal for a few minutes, but it all turned out okay and 20th Century Fox got its money shot.

The takeaway is that the aliens will protect us–at least as soon as they get their act together. They won’t allow nuclear war, and according to Mitchell they’ve already dropped in on the Pope and discussed world peace. So if all else fails, maybe they’ll save us from a second Clinton presidency— is that too much to expect from superior life forms?

How to vote on election day….

In closing, WOOF suggests that every patriot make a point of murmuring “Klaatu barada nikto” repeatedly as he or she enters the polling booth this November.  We aren’t really sure what it means, but when uttered by actress Patricia Neal in 1951’s The Day the Earth Stood Still, the phrase stopped Gort, a robot from space with powers of mass destruction, from laying waste to the entire country…so why shouldn’t it stop Hillary Clinton? Perhaps the aliens, hovering watchfully aboard their motherships, will respond to our appeal by humanely immobilizing the threat.  Gort was a lot tougher than Hillary, after all, plus he could walk around without falling over–so Hillary should be a cinch.  Otherwise, we may be filing WOOF’s next anniversary post from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.  Until then, fellow citizens…continue the mission! Stand your ground! Place your reliance in a just and righteous Providence…but brace for impact! WOOF PRINT 

Altogether now: KLatuu

Altogether now: “Klaatu barada nikto!” “Klaatu barada nikto!” “Klaatu barada nikto!”  (gasp!) “Klaatu barada nikto!””Klaatu barada nikto!”…louder…! “Klaatu barada nikto…”

THE RETURN OF THE WHITE MAN’S BURDEN (or) How Liberalism put White Privilege in charge of deciding when Black Lives Matter…try to keep up!

In "Tastefully avoiding puns with the word 'race' in them" forum on September 19, 2016 at 2:06 pm


Do you like Kipling?

As every educated westerner knows, the proper response to “Do you like Kipling?” is “I don’t know, I’ve never kippled!” But seriously, the man whom Orwell labeled “the prophet of British imperialism” is a profoundly misunderstood chap, especially in our age wherein berating old dead White guys is considered proof of intellectual sophistication. In fact, ranting against someone like Kipling will probably get you more respect on most college campuses than actually reading him! But because he gave us the “hook” for this month’s tumid screed, let’s begin with a brief overview of the writer’s extraordinary fall from grace—a reputational tumble so vertiginous that he is rarely recalled nowadays for his narrative genius and almost never for his intuitive appreciation of certain throne-and-alter conventions that bore the protoplasmic essence of philosophical conservatism. Nobody today echoes Henry James’s assessment of Kipling as “the most complete man of genius…I have ever known,” yet he was England’s most widely read and respected author at the close of the 19th century and the dawn of the 20th.

Kipling for beginners….

rudyard kiplingBorn in Bombay, India, Kipling’s world was the British Raj—the colonizing (and civilizing) vanguard of Victorian cultural refinement following fast upon the impact of British arms.  Later in his life, Kipling returned to India where he worked from 1883–89 writing for local newspapers. When personal differences with his editors resulted in demands for his resignation, he returned to England by way of Rangoon, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and America. Traveling through the United States he befriended Mark Twain, golfed with Arthur Conan Doyle, and settled for quite some time in Vermont.

Shifting the burden in Kipling…

“Mmmm—We think We like the other poem better!”

Repatriated to England, Kipling set about writing a poem in honor of Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee, thus The White Man’s Burden was set to paper. But Her Majesty preferred a different Kipling composition, and Burden was shelved for the moment. It was later–following America’s seizure of the Philippines from Spanish Imperial rule in 1898– that Kipling saw a new role for his poem.

Kipling rewrote portions of the poem to reflect the American situation rather than Great Britain’s. Of course, the perception that the United States is an imperialist power (greedily squeezing the wealth out of the undeveloped world for the benefit of a small cartel of selfish industrialists) is so beloved on the dyspeptic Left from Alinsky to Zinn to Obama, we hardly have the heart to invalidate it here—let us rather agree that what halfhearted efforts America put into colonization came during this expansionary epoch.

When Kipling caught on in the States….

In the refurbished poem, Kipling exhorts America (the colonizing power formerly intended to be Great Britain) to seek empire, yet philosophizes concernedly about the inherent costs of doing so:

Take up the White Man’s burden—And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard—The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah slowly) to the light:
“Why brought ye us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?”

Moro warriors--just not feeling the gratitude!

That’s gratitude for you! Liberated Moro tribesmen resist Uncle Sam’s benign governance.

As a revised cri de coeur meant to inspire Americans to share the responsibility for spreading Christianity, medicine, governance and lawfulness across the globe, Kipling’s verse retained some rough edges. Obviously, no American forces were deployed to Africa, thus references to Egyptian nights seemed bizarre. Besides, accepting the Philippines as a going away gift from their previous owner almost accidentally embroiled U.S. Forces in armed contestations with violently disapproving native populations. (Spain may have neglected to mention that problem in its haste to decamp.) As the United States tinkered awkwardly with the concept of empire building, ferocious fighting erupted in response to the American presence; in fact the Moro and other indigenous people of the islands– incensed at not being consulted–declared war on the United States.  American forces repeatedly defeated the indigenous fighters, but even after the Philippine Republic officially surrendered in 1902, guerilla warfare was waged by the Tagalog, Pulahanes and Moro peoples, all of whom maintained proud warrior traditions, many of whom attacked half-crazed on dope, and the majority of whom seemed utterly resistant to anything Kipling had to say about the matter. The resistance was not entirely subdued until 1913 and required the invention of the .45 Colt automatic pistol, which John Browning developed specifically to stop berserk Moros who proved insufficiently daunted by the army’s .38s.

Without the Moros, there might never have been a 1911 .45 ACP pistol--so at least some good came out of the whole business.

Without the Moros, there might never have been a 1911 .45 ACP handgun–so at least some good came out of the whole business.

Nothing in America’s foundational enzymes conduced toward these sorts of enterprises—besides which–or perhaps on account of which–we have always evinced a terribly un-imperialistic tendency to prevail militarily, spread all the gifts of civilization as lavishly as circumstances permit, and then leave.

TR peruses Kipling, despite stylistic reservations.

TR peruses Kipling, despite stylistic reservations.

This is hardly to suggest that large subsets of Americans did not perceive imperialism to represent the next evolutionary step for the Republic. Progressivism, as we shall see plainly in due course, has always maintained an ardor for subjugating and controlling the darker races, and Theodore Roosevelt, whose most regrettable attribute was surely his progressive streak, saw Kipling’s poem as a call for territorial conquest. Writing to his friend, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Teddy exhorted Lodge to read Kipling’s verse, declaring that it was “rather poor poetry, but good sense from the expansion point of view.” Kipling’s reaction to TR’s literary critique, if any, is lost to history.

Kipling breaks bad…..

Senator Tillman--not a fan!

Senator Tillman–not a fan!

Many Americans–perhaps the majority—were less fired by the poem than disquieted. It rang with pretensions to racial superiority that seemed–especially given the significance of the Civil War—disturbingly reminiscent of the antebellum south’s assumptions about American Negroes. Somewhat perversely, also, Senator “Pitchfork” Benjamin Tillman took exception, reading Kipling aloud to his peers in the Capital to reinforce his argument for scrapping the Treaty of Paris, asking “Are we to spread the Christian religion with the bayonet point as Mahomet spread Islam with a scimitar?” Pitchfork, himself a fire breathing racist, was opposed to bringing any more “racial inferiors” under the wing of the United States. Kipling struck him as a bleeding-heart trouble maker.  Others, who grasped the author’s mindset more discerningly, nevertheless scoffed at Kipling’s theme of implicit altruism.

Before Kipling was invented….

Others in the United States opposed the poem because it seemed remindful of “manifest destiny,” support for which was always scattered in American politics. Long before Kipling set verse to paper, the concept of Manifest Destiny was abroad in the land. The American Whig party argued, unimaginatively enough, that America’s destiny lay in staying put and offering the world an example of morality and democracy rather than territorial expansion. Of course, the Whigs soon became extinct.

The “Muddy Waters Doctrine”

The man, the myth, the doctrine that we just invented!

The man, the myth, the doctrine that we just invented!

Manifest destiny was also much ballyhooed when events, some glorious, others less so, and still others so labyrinthine as to elude classification, led to what Historians and  Mexicans like to call the “annexation of Texas.” In fact, following his humiliation at the Battle of Santa Jacinto, Santa Ana (not so fresh from overrunning the Alamo) signed treaties requiring his forces to retreat south of the Rio Grande and promised a thoroughly peeved Sam Houston he would instruct the Mexican Congress to recognize the Rio Grande as the border between the two countries. Thus, Texas, to the extent that it was annexed at all, was annexed fair and square, paid for in blood by Bowie, Travis, Crockett, and countless other Texians.  [And yes, we know, Mexico changed its mind about Santa Ana’s bargain when Texas became our 28th state, and the Mexican/American War ensued, during which Mexico was again defeated—but if Muddy Waters was correct in saying “you can’t lose what you ain’t never had,” surely some American academicians can be won over to the equally logical proposition that you can’t annex what you’ve already got.]

Feel the inevitability!

downloadBeginning with Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory and his support for the Lewis and Clark expedition, it seemed evident that North America was set upon a process of civilized expansion into contiguous regions unbounded by borders. It seemed manifest. Our misguided efforts to expand northward (where there were, in fact, borders) were stymied during both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 by British and Canadian soldiers who seemed on both occasions adimant about declining statehood.

On the other hand, expanding toward the Pacific struck investors, entrepreneurs, explorers, and frontiersmen, as an ineluctable undertaking; and except in Texas, no foreign armies or contending powers were involved in the country’s Westward march—the obvious exception being the Indians regarding whom White settlers only rarely evinced behaviors approaching the standards of Kipling’s vision. This fact, unpleasant though it be, illustrates another distinction between Imperial colonization and Manifest Destiny. Kipling’s poem begins with the lines:

          Take up the White Man’s burden, Send forth the best ye breed
          Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives’ need…

As Custer discovered when he took command of the Seventh Cavalry, the American war department made no effort to send the best of our breed to its far western outposts— and nobody, no matter how supportive of our sweep toward the pacific, ever rationally argued that our soldiers or settlers were there to serve the needs of the Indians. One could argue, in fact, that western expansion might have been slightly less brutal if Grant and several hundreds of others in the East had been able to read Kipling.

The war to end econo-federalism?

civil-war-cartoon-1862-grangerQuite distinct from the extension of American dominance spreading across the plains, was the morally requisite growth of hostility toward the institution of slavery. It should suffice to comment that slavery became so heated an issue that ultimately, bereft of alternatives in law and threatened by the attempted secession of 11 states, the nation became involved in a vast civil war resulting in 1,100,000 casualties and the sacrifice of 625,000 American lives, not counting Lincoln’s. We realize that readers who are unwitting victims of the sophisticated opinionists currently ensconced in the history departments of higher academe will immediately object when we write the war was waged to settle the issue of slavery—but come off it. The alternative explanations enjoying academic currency wither as soon as they are subjected to the primary test. Go ahead, bounce your enlightened explications off us—each of them can be shown to be vapid unless supported by the dark tradition of human bondage. Economics? Economics based on what—or rather, on whom? States’ rights? States rights to do what? The Missouri Compromise? Gee, what was that about? The election of Lincoln? Don’t make it so easy.

It suits the purpose of liberalism to skirt the issue, in order that America seem less praiseworthy.  Leftist academics achieve this by disguising tautology as sophistication. Urban civil rights activist likewise prefer to ignore this central truth because they can claim grievances more persuasively once ridded of the burden of gratitude (Kipling, anyone?) We bear Southern apologists no ill will, but the civil war was about slavery, gentle readers, and slavery is evil, and the South lost.  Indeed, in the truest sense of Kipling’s verse, the North marched  “To seek another’s profit, And work another’s gain.” Obviously the average Union soldier didn’t think such things, nor did many of his officers and generals–just as many of the South’s finest from Lee to Stuart to Jackson fought for reasons of regional allegiance without any love for slavery; but without the enslavement of Africans in the South, the Confederacy would never have congealed, and Fort Sumter would be a name lost to history.economic-disagreements

Despite all the subversive anecdotage readers may have been compelled to absorb from Howard Zinn and his clones, the United States immersed itself in an internecine conflict so bloody that no war before or since resulted in so many American deaths, and slavery was, in fact, the fundamental issue compelling the states to divide and do battle. No other nation in the entirety of human history has engaged in so monumental a blood sacrifice to such purpose, let alone done so even as that abhorrent institution flourished in most of the rest of the world.  Without making this point emphatically, we cannot accurately relate the American narrative to Kipling’s vision.

Flunking Imperialism

samimagesNow we are at the part of this screed where, were it a motion picture, moviegoers would be shown the legend: “One hundred years later…” And we find that the Philippines are a proudly independent if dysfunctional nation, that Nicaraguans (whom we bedeviled during the same general period) were liberated from a right wing dictator by a half-witted communist and shortly afterward liberated from half-witted communist oppression by President Reagan, Ollie North, and the Contras—following which Nicaragua held free elections, ultimately electing the same half-witted communist as their president, but  hey, that’s Central America.  Elsewhere, many locations where America once fleetingly planted Old Glory and subsequently rethought the matter seem more inclined to pester us for statehood than rage against our tyrannies.

Creative equivocation….

Our national conversation has been hampered by various aspects of militancy, including duck tape.

Our national conversation has been hampered by various aspects of militancy, including duct tape.

Our ambivalence up to this point in advancing our thoughts about Kipling’s opus is not (at least entirely) ascribable to moral cowardice. President Obama wowed the swooning  network newsies 8 years ago and famously set Chris Matthews’s leg aquiver, by encouraging a national conversation about race. At the time, it seemed only vaguely necessary; but after two terms of Obama, Holder, Lynch, and their race-baiting minions conflagrating racial tensions, it seems obvious that such a conversation is overdue. And in any such conversation, Rudyard Kipling is owed a seat at the table.  We know, we know, our liberal and “independent” readers (all seven or eight of them) will feel obliged to send us emails objecting that no liberal in the history of American liberalism ever declared an affinity for Kipling’s obscenely supremacist ravings–and we hereby relieve them of that obligation by replying preemptively, “so what?”  The fact that leftists approach race relations in this day and age from a remarkably Kipling-esque standpoint, and that American Blacks do likewise, is no less a fact for the Left’s inability to perceive it.  Thus, we contend that viewed through a contemporary lens, the themes of The White Man’s Burden are entirely consonant with liberal civil rights initiatives, and have been for decades. How can such an irony endure unchallenged?


It’s the media, cupcake!

“Steffy”the Journalist

Everyone who owns a television set. reads newspapers, or frequents the leftwing blogosphere knows that Republicans and conservatives despise minorities and want to drag them around by chains, or turn fire hoses on them in the streets– right?  Of course the image is pure sophistry, but that is what many Americans persist in believing, especially seeming majorities of people of color. How can this ridiculous perception persist?  It’s the media, cupcake! Want an example?  To avoid aggravating anyone, we shall call only one witness, George Stefanopoulos.

“Uh…oh, right…my Christian faith…”

Readers will recall when Barack Obama, running for president back in 2008, appeared on ABC and complimented his opponent’s religious tolerance, telling Stephanopoulos,”John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.”  Anyone familiar with the incident will recall that Stephanopoulos interrupted Obama at that moment, interjecting “Your Christian faith!” to which Obama flatly replied, “My Christian Faith.”  Oops. Well, anyone can make a darn mistake. How many times have most of us made similar slips?—you know—starting to call ourselves Christian or Jewish but accidentally blurting out “Zoroastrian,” or “Hindu?”

Governor Wallace is famous for declaring,

TRUE FACT:.Governor Wallace is famous for declaring, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” a phrase so admired by the New Black Panthers that they adopted it and use it today!

But more to our point, here was the familiar example of George Stephanopoulos (“Steffy” to the elites)  simply exerting himself to assist a fellow Democrat—and isn’t that what the media are all about? So what went wrong on ABC Sunday last July 24th, when Representative Keith Ellison (D. Minn) began comparing donald Trump to the late George Wallace–you know–the Alabama governor who stood in the school house door to keep Black students from registering in 1962.

Rep. Ellison reconsiders: “…and I’d have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for that meddling cowboy!”

Ellison, who is Black, and ought to know better, explained to Steffy that Donald Trump would be “the worst Republican nominee since George  Wallace.” And here’s the really strange part– Steffy Stephanopoulos just sat there nodding. His long streak of helpfully band-aiding gaffes issuing from his fellow leftists came to a sudden stop.   Ellison betrayed an embarrassing ignorance of civil-rights history, and  Steffy Stephanopoulos, who surely noted the Congressman’s mistake, said nothing. Why not? Is Stephanopoulos racist? Did he want the Black politician to look stupid? Fortunately, ABC Sunday’s other guest was Congressman Tom Cole (R-Okla) who took a moment to inform Ellison that George Wallace was a Democrat.  Ellison stared glumly at his desk, and Stephanopoulos moved things in another, though equally slanted, direction.  Steffy knew that Wallace was a Democrat, like Bull Conner, Robert Byrd (a high-level Klansman), and so many other segregationist Dixiecrats. So why didn’t he nudge Ellison as he had Obama?  The reason is obvious, of course–Ellison’s poor comprehension of history served the leftist narrative that Stefanopoulos strives to advance– and Steffy assumed his viewership wouldn’t know any better.  He reckoned without Representative Cole, however, who spoiled the moment.


Famous segregationists, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, and Robert Byrd are typical of the Democrat Party’s racist heritage. Today, a more subtle racism has swept that Party– Lyndon Johnson’s tactical focus on keeping Americans of color beholden to White Liberal generosity became a less obvious but far more efficient guarantor of servitude than Jim Crow.

So powerful is the Liberal Establishment, gushing similar propaganizements from nearly all available conduits of contemporary culture, it is hardly surprising that Black voters file dutifully to the polls whenever required, to elect or re-elect liberal politicians despite the fact that it is impossible to point to any advantage they have ever gained thereby. Worse, in weirdly self-destructive conformity, Blacks vote overwhelmingly to keep liberal Democrats in charge of cities that are bankrupt or becoming so, violent to degrees that would approach genocide except for the fact that Blacks are also doing most of the killing, and where any possibility of rejuvenation is thwarted by excessive taxation and overt graft combined with street-level anarchy repelling any investors other than the Federal Government, which lavishly incentivizes the very behaviors that immiserate Black communities, including unemployment, single parenthood, and disastrous school systems. Murders in Chicago, meanwhile, are up 72 percent over this time last year, while shootings are 88 percent ahead of 2015. March alone accounted for 45 murders and 271 shooting incidents. Chicago has not elected a Republican mayor since 1927. The archetypically sleazy Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff, became the Windy City’s mayor in 2011 and easily won re-election in 2015. Chicagoans must be pleased with their city’s direction.

Rahm Emanuel's Chicago--where at least the WPA would prove superfluous since despair and terror produce more art than the New Deal ever could!

Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago–where the WPA would prove superfluous since despair and terror produce more art than the New Deal ever could!  Ah, culture!

Detroiters love Democrats too. The Motor City has been run almost exclusively by liberal Democrats since 1962. A recent Washington Post article sneered at what the author called “the Republican obsession with Detroit,” making the case that “Detroit does not vote for Republicans.” In a burst of editorial perversity, the Post writer argued that Republicans were daft to consider solutions for a city that clearly spurned their attentions. Gloatingly, the author added that “In 2012, 97.5 percent of the city went for Barack Obama. The county sheriff is a Democrat, as are the three U.S. representatives whose districts surround the city. The current mayor, the previous mayor, the six mayors before that guy: all Democrats, too.” And Detroit has a higher murder rate than Chicago–almost exclusively Black on Black crime. It is also a fiscal black hole (no pun intended, honestly) into which bail-out dollars vanish ineffectually. It may be recalled that Detroit went bankrupt shortly following Barack Obama’s vow that he would never permit Detroit to go bankrupt.

Barack Obama boasted during the 2012 election that his policies saved Detroit from going bankrupt. Following the election, Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. Where's the white Man's Burden when you need it, right?

Obama boasted during the 2012 election that his policies saved Detroit from going bankrupt. Following the election, Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. Where’s that White Man’s Burden when you need it, right?

The most violent cities in America, listed in descending order of homicidal intensity, are Detroit, MI;  Memphis, TN;  Oakland, CA: St. Louis, MO; Milwaukee, WI, and Baltimore, MD. Each city has been ruled by liberal Democrats for as long as citizens can recall–and each has a Democrat mayor.  Many have been sites of racial violence in which the Black Lives Matter movement played a role. This role will now expand considerably. The perfidious George Soros just poured $650,000 into BLM’s coffers, and the subversive Ford Foundation is preparing, even now, to up Soros’s ante by several million. Being on the trickle-down side of the White Man’s Burden may not provide much enlightenment nowadays, but enrichment there is aplenty!

Be afraid--be very afraid!

Be afraid–be very afraid!


Let Elvis explain.



The Memphis Coalition of Concerned Citizens is a collection of various activist groups — Black Lives Matter Memphis Chapter, Memphis Voices for Palestine [WOOF is not making this up], the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense & Inward Journey, and the Memphis Grass Roots Organization. This illustrious conglomeration recently announced its plans for a “show of solidarity” at Graceland, home to the late Elvis Presley. The singer’s mansion has been maintained in its original condition with furnishings and decor as Elvis left them, and also functions as a kind of museum, shrine, gift shop and popular Memphis landmark. Thus, upon reading that the CCC was planning a “demonstration of solidarity” we wondered what admirable traits of Mr. Presley’s, in particular,  had bestirred so massive a display of empathy…but, of course, we soon recognized our error.

The Concerned Coalition of Citizens intended to show solidarity mainly with Black Lives Matter, and with any other scowling malcontents willing to attachblmimages the issues of race, poverty, and White privilege to Presley’s estate. Their announced intention was to “shut down Graceland” during Elvis Week. Prior to these announcements, WOOF was unaware that Elvis Week was even a thing, much less a thing that any band of self-described civil rights activists could possibly find threatening. One might say our consciousness was raised, or at least augmented, by the Coalition’s statement on the matter, which, in part, read as follows:

 “The demonstration, set for Monday at 6:00pm, is planned as a peaceful show of solidarity, unifying the people of Memphis against systems that promote poverty, violence and economic disparity. Graceland… demonstrates one of Memphis’s most common forms of financial inequity. Graceland recently opened The Guest House, a new 450 room resort style hotel in the heart of the African American community of Whitehaven. The project cost more than $120 million dollars to build and received upwards of 78 million dollars in public funding and tax breaks. Project developers and city officials promised Whitehaven residents the project would be an economic boon to the community, but as has been case for decades, residents have seen little if any of that money ‘trickle down’ into the middle class neighborhood’s economy.”

True, it might have been simpler to admit that ruining the vacations of hundreds of Elvis fans, most of whom drove from out of state to peacefully peruse their idol’s manse and reminisce with fellow Elvis devotees, was a surefire way to get themselves onto the local and national news while creating a big enough impingement on the normal flow of events that some of the singer’s redneck cracker fan base was likely to lose its cool and yell some deliciously microaggressive slurs and maybe even become violent—but we would do the Coalition and its allies an injustice if we failed to parse their official statement for insight, because therein we will discover the continuing relevance of the hero of this month’s screed.

We checked--not an Elvis song!

We checked–not an Elvis song!

First, let’s consider the idea that marching into Graceland with the sole purpose of creating an annoyance is somehow “unifying the people of Memphis against the systems that create poverty” and “economic disparity.” What systems are we intended to infer here? The governance of White Democrat Jim Strickland, who besides joining the NAACP and showing up for photo ops at soup kitchens has done nothing whatsoever to meaningfully improve the lives of Black Memphians?  Or are we intended to think inculpatory thoughts about the all-Democrat, (mostly Black) city council? Because, clearly, all the relevant “systems” are entirely liberal Democrat, and largely African American—and while it is exactly true that they continue to promote poverty, it is difficult to imagine any connection to Elvis. Why not picket the people in power who bear the actual responsibility for mismanagement, incompetence, and to no small degree, graft?  Here’s a thought: Why not stop voting for them? But back to reality: Nobody in the Black community, or in the White liberal community, ever thinks of this–not only because liberalism is incapable of critical introspection, but also because Kipling has liberalism in a philosophical vice grip!


Finally! Someone gets our point! Lead them to personal responsibility and political independence, sister!!!

Apparently “Graceland…represents one of Memphis’s most common forms of economic inequity” Really? First, what on earth can be intended by calling the fortune compiled by Elvis Presley “common?” Does the upper crust in Memphis consist mainly of Rock and Roll singers swept to fame on the wings of social upheaval arguably engendered by their musical performances?  Can we just assume that question is patently rhetorical?


Early Elvis, seen here with Sammy Davis Jr., probably apologizing for all the financial inequity.

No, the only economic inequity generated by Presley was the natural result of his marketable abilities. The idea that talented performers earning large salaries in proportion to  how much approval they generate among the record-buying or movie-going public somehow constitutes unfairness makes sense only on the most sophomoric levels of pop collectivism…but of course, nowadays, that’s most of them.

No inequity, no White Privilege, no problem!

No inequity here, no White Privilege, no problem!

Graceland represents economic diversity, not inequity. It stands as evidence of a fundamental precept of the capitalist system—that some people will provide goods and services so eagerly received and widely demanded that they will amass wealth as a result—and with that wealth they may choose to erect homes, acquire land, obtain automobiles, fly in private jets to get pizza, shoot an occasional TV set, and generally pursue enthusiasms on a scale not available to those whose gifts are more pedestrian and whose surroundings are consequently less opulent. Rap artists are perfect examples of this sort of “economic inequity,” but no BLM protester would dream of considering the fact, nor any White Leftist—because the power structure targeted for destruction by these entities must be perceived and described as White. Otherwise, what’s the point? Otherwise, where’s Kipling?

The Coalition of Concerned Citizens complains that “78 million dollars in public funding and tax breaks” contributed to building a ‘guest house’” (in fact a luxury hotel where tourists may elect to reside while visiting Graceland). Apparently, the outlay of public funds was approved only because developers and politicians promised residents that erecting the hotel would spread economic growth throughout the surrounding community. The Coalition contends that no such benefits ‘trickled down.’ [Their phrase, naturally.]  If such were the case, surely the wrath of BLM and the CCC would be better focused on the city planners, office holders, and organizers who lied about the benefits and are therefore quite possibly liable for their deceptions. Certainly pursuing these culprits would make more sense than assailing the fans of Elvis Presley, who had nothing to do with duping the Black community, and nothing to do with maintaining in office the legions of mainly Black, entirely liberal municipal hacks whose promises routinely prove empty.

epmagesBut no. The overriding symbolism and subtext of the Coalition’s complaint in no respect inculpates the actual villains, because doing so would not serve the template. Instead, the leadership implies that minorities in the vicinity are somehow victims of the White power elite, personified, however awkwardly, by Elvis. The impression given is that every economic woe the underprivileged confront is directly linked to White exploitation. In this popular weltanschauung, the Whites crowding into Graceland are the beneficiaries of an unequal distribution of income that allows them to traipse through the Jungle Room and mill about the trophy building, so immersed in their bourgeois pursuits that they never pause to think of the hardships their very existence imposes upon minorities…or the moral obligations (the Burden) this places upon them!

Police brutality was not much in evidence during the protest.

Police brutality was not much in evidence during the protest.

Properly understood, the message BLM & CCC sent from Graceland is simple. Blacks in the African American community of Whitehaven (which seems  unfortunately appellated, we’d submit) are miserable, and their immiseration is ascribable to Elvis Presley, more or less, and his sneering minions. Ridiculous?  Not once you realize that in BLM’s cosmology it is not acceptable to blame city officials, coordinators, the mayor, or any municipal official, or anyone who repeatedly votes for these sinecurists, because only White racism is allowable as the casual factor,  never the miscreancies of liberal Democrats. It follows therefore that residents of Whitehaven have no means of bettering themselves apart from their reliance on hotels being built for Elvis Presley’s fans. Further, the protestors wish it understood, the hotel was built, and the oppressed minorities of Whitehaven got zip. In fact, we are told, they were materially damaged by the project.

Never mind?


A guest house room, featuring a gold lamé momento symbolic of economic disparity, one assumes.

Except that employment, by every measure possible, leapt upwards with the project’s arrival. Whitehaven Kiwanis Club official, Calvin Burton, who appears authentically Black, called the hotel “a goldmine,” adding that Graceland’s Guest House was “about to start a large snowball effect [in which] people get jobs at Graceland, crime goes down, more businesses move in, and that means more jobs move in, this is the snowball effect residents in Whitehaven are welcoming.” Marvin Newsum, also persuasively Black, added that  he has lived in Whitehaven more than 30 years “and could not be happier,” Both men hailed the 450 jobs already created by the project and a coming jobs fair aimed at making employment available to still more residents. Did someone forget to tell Black Lives Matter? Should the glad tidings be rushed to the leadership of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens post haste?  Don’t be silly!

Who was Darrius Stewart?

stewartCoalition leaders also chose Graceland because “the site has ties to…the death of unarmed teen Darrius Stewart,” although Stewart’s only known association with Graceland is that he was killed in its arguable proximity. Detained by Memphis police officer Connor Shilling, Stewart overheard radio transmissions cautioning Shilling to hold him on several out-of-state warrants stemming from—among other things–charges of sexual abuse of minors. At this point, Connor testified, Stewart, who had not been handcuffed, attacked him. A struggle ensued, much of which is captured on video, during which Stewart seized Connor’s handcuffs and lashed him about the head. Schilling emerged from the struggle with bite marks, bruises, and Stewart’s DNA all over his uniform. Stewart, on the other hand, did not survive the melee during which Connor reached his service pistol and fired two rounds, one of which proved fatal to his assailant. Forensics proved the shots were fired only feet from Stewart, verifying that Shilling fired them in the heat of a struggle and thus “acted in reasonable fear that his life or the lives of others were in jeopardy,” making the use of lethal force permissible. A grand jury refused to indict Shilling, who was nevertheless removed from active duty. As is so often the case, it again appears that a youthful Black male, mythologized by the community as yet another innocent victim of a willfully homicidal police force, might have been spared martyrdom had he simply elected to refrain from physically assaulting a policeman.

Check your “social formations!”

On August 16th, the 39th anniversary of the death of Elvis Presley, Black Lives Matter protesters staged a protest calling for increases in the minimum wage (of course), relief from unemployment (which goes hand in hand, they seem to believe, with increasing the minimum wage), and an end to police brutality in the city.  The police demonstrated their brutality by fencing protesters off to the degree that they could not obstruct visitors to Elvis’s home, and making only three arrests during the entire protest, and this despite the fact that BLM neglected to apply for a permit. Elvis devotees were not significantly obstructed, and the media didn’t get a bloodbath, but no news cycle is perfect.

And as it turned out, the three arrested protesters poorly represented the oppressed classes. What were the police thinking?

As it turned out, the three arrested protesters only partially represented the oppressed classes. What were the police thinking?

So what else did BLM want? Actually, the organization has listed nearly 400 demands phrased in what one might nowadays call paleo-revolutionary argot almost plangently familiar to anyone who dealt with campus radicalism during the militant ‘60s. Most demands are ludicrously divorced from reality, demanding on the one hand the abolition of police forces, and on the other, “increased protection…for black institutions like historically black colleges and ‘social formations.’” Many demands follow florid prologizing, the idea being—it seems—that the demand will seem all the more sensible given the premise provided.  To the contrary, the prefatory rhetoric simply numbs the eyeballs with such fatuities as, “Until we achieve a world where cages are no longer used against our people, we demand an immediate change in conditions and an end to public jails, detention centers, youth facilities and prisons as we know them.”

Kipling rides again

imagesWhat is germane to our theme in each of these demands is the implicit appeal to authority, invariably envisioned as White, (facts to the contrary notwithstanding) to make concessions, however implausible, to people who are Black. These concessions, were any made, would be heralded by the Coalition as capitulations to “the people”—to the community’s righteous demands for social justice; but that would be sheer dissimilation. Concessions, were any made, would exemplify noblesse oblige—the felt responsibility of the dominant culture. The burden, in other words, of the privileged class. Rudyard Kipling, please call your office—the tenor of the poet’s sentiments is altered only slightly by the militancy with which favors are sought, and the fact that those empowered to consider granting them are driven less by altruism than assimilated guilt (or political expedience). But amazingly, Kipling’s burden has not shifted an iota…it is still up to the White Man to give to the Black Man the means of socioeconomic sustenance.

The Milwaukee Riot

Smith, in happier days.

Smith and gun, in happier days.

On the 13th of August, a piteously distraught Mildred Haynes told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel  “My son is gone due to the police killing my son.”And that was a concise summation of events, if not as detailed or nuanced as subsequent accounts. The deceased in this instance was Sylville Smith, known already to police as a suspect in a shooting soon after which he was charged with witness intimidation when he endeavored to coerce the victim into withdrawing his testimony. In fact, Smith’s police record was extensive, including a concealed weapon charge from 2014 and a citation for operating a motor vehicle without a license while speeding and with open intoxicants in view.


On the night of the 13th, Smith was pulled over in a rental car that flagged as stolen. The entire event lasted 25 seconds. For reasons he is unavailable to explain, Smith exited his vehicle. fled on foot, and pulled a handgun as he ran. Officers pursued Smith who at some point during the chase made the additionally puzzling decision to pivot and level his handgun (which was afterwards determined to be stolen) at the foremost police officer, who was Black. The officer thereupon drew his weapon and ordered Smith twice to drop his gun. Smith, as clearly shown on the officer’s body cam, preferred not to. Consequently, the officer shot and killed him. Smith’s gun was loaded—in fact it contained 23 rounds—and the officer’s response was entirely lawful, and may well have averted his own demise. Moreover, the officer who shot Smith was a local rap performer and, it transpired, a classmate of Smith’s in high school.  But no matter any of that—another innocent Black youth (okay, Smith was 23) had been gunned down by the genocidal janissaries of White Racial Supremacy, and a riot almost necessarily ensued.

Say what you will, Detroit really knew how to have a riot!

Say what you will, Detroit really knew how to have a riot!

Okay, riots have happened for far less inflammatory reasons—the Detroit riot of 1967 started over a raided poker game. Milwaukee’s Black population was already chafing under the weight of several recent encounters involving questionable conduct by police, some of which appear substantive. And information is hard to come by at first, so passions are inflamed well before facts are circulated. To the BLM leadership, of course, facts are irrelevant to the narrative, and that narrative sufficed to spark the Milwaukee riot of 2016 which began with approximately one-hundred Black protesters gathering at North Sherman and Auer to confront a line of about twenty police officers as the “community organizers” at BLM set to work ginning up further outrage via social media. Predictably, things got violent.

As riots go, this one was par for the course. Cars, including some police cruisers, were smashed or set ablaze, a gas station was looted and torched, and firefighters proved unable to approach the blaze owing to scattered gunshots and a barrage of bricks. One officer was hit by a brick and rushed to treatment while other protesters, incognizant of the alliances implicit in such events, attacked reporters and photographers who were merely attempting to “get their story out.” But the evening’s festivities ended with only 4 officers injured, all the fires finally subdued, and only the usual number of liquor stores and supermarkets looted and/or demolished. For a time it appeared that peace might be restored and a dialogue opened.

Support trouble-free revolution!

Comrade Dix likes to wear Mao on his chest, so people don't forget he's a communist.

Comrade Dix likes to wear Mao on his chest, so people don’t forget he’s a communist.

But city authorities reckoned without the appearance of a far older, more practiced and calculated malignancy. The Chicago based (go figure!) Revolutionary Communist Party dispatched operatives to Milwaukee who proved so successful at stimulating a second day of wanton destruction that Police chief Ed Flynn singled them out for credit, telling the press on the second day “the communist group showed up, and actually they’re the ones who started to cause problems.”

Reached by phone, comrade Carl Dix, co-founder of the Revolutionary Communist Party, blamed the “righteous rebellion” on Smith’s death, helpfully adding that “This system sees police wantonly murdering people as part of the normal order of things.” Dix took the opportunity to advocate dismantling the police, but feigned astonishment at Chief Flynn’s accusations. “If anybody wants to allege that our people were actually committing those acts, they should bring that to us. That wasn’t what we went up there to do,” Dix said, insisting that his people “did go there to support a revolution but didn’t set out to cause trouble.”

What is to be done?

So now that the bricks have stopped flying and the streets have been swept free of debris, now that the communists have returned to Chicago, what acts of contrition and profferings of largesse can the sectors of White Privilege supply to ablute their guilt?  Yes, we know, the police should be dismantled, and the killer cops thrown to the mob, but seriously, beyond these puerilities, in a phrase Comrade Dix might resonate to, what is to be done?

Reporter Aaron Mak was nearly beaten to death, but the mob let him go when they realized he was Asian. which is kind of heart warming, really.

Reporter Aaron Mak was nearly beaten to death, but the mob let him go when they realized he was Asian. which is kind of heart warming, really.

During the riot’s second day, an intrepid crew of  TV reporters evaded pummeling long enough to perform a man-in-the-street interview with an  unidentified Black gentleman on the periphery of the violence, “It’s sad,” the man explained, “because, you know, this is what happen because they not helping the black community. The rich people they got all this money and they not, like you know, trying to give us none.”  The gentleman, whoever he was, exhibited an uncanny gift for synopsis. The same essential lamentation seemed on the lips of every resident the press managed to buttonhole.

The Raj is where the heart bleeds!

the Raj is where the heart bleeds...

The Hollywood Reporter ran a story recently about Opera Winfrey’s forthcoming TV series Queen Sugar, which in and of itself would matter not a wit to us at this remove, except that during the extensive interview, Ava DuVernay, the series’ authentically Black director, experienced one of those epiphanic moments that beset we mortals on quirkish occasion, and told the Reporter, “If you treat being Black as a plight, it affects your creativity.”  Think about that, gentle readers! Roll it around your frontal lobes for a bit.

Granted, were Ava DuVernay by the remotest chance to discover this screed, she might angrily insist that we have taken her out of context, but we contend that her statement is of that rare caliber that functions in virtually any context—making it worthy of inclusion among The Eternal Verities, postmodernism notwithstanding. And mindful though we be, here in the WOOF cave, of the invidious threat posed by dread cultural appropriation, we believe DuVernay’s insight works equally well for Whites—insofar as they too should desist from viewing “being Black as a plight,” and find more creative ways of addressing issues of inclusion. Sadly, however, nobody from the political left is prepared to do this, nobody to the center-right has the courage, and nobody to the right of the center-right could attempt it without being pulverized by media billingsgate.

TRUE FACT: Even though the terms

TRUE FACT: Even though the terms “Black” and “African American” were yet to be popularized, President Johnson never learned to correctly pronounce the word ‘Negro.’

Instead, American liberalism has created a new Raj in the United States, where White Privilege is seen as a kind of self-accusatory parallel to the old Kiplingism–and one that obliges the dispensation of favors to the perceived underclasses who prefer victimhood to self-efficacy–and who ceaselessly harangue the despised Imperialists (read: White Americans) for more and more contributions in the name of social justice.  It is not really WOOF’s purpose here to say categorically that this is wrong, or even improper. It is our purpose to say only that it is happening, in a weird homage to Kipling, and once again the entire burden of responsibility for the raising up of the underprivileged is placed squarely upon the shoulders of White, largely European elites.  It is placed there by America’s Black population–but they learned the gimmick from Lyndon Baines Johnson. And that says a lot about why liberalism now owns the White Man’s Burden.

And for peace in Southeast Asia, too; remember?

And peace in Southeast Asia, too; remember?

Johnson’s “Great Society” subsidized every social affliction detectable in the Black populations of America’s cities, and by subsidizing such difficulties, caused them to multiply. Liberal exertions destroyed the Black middle class, the Black nuclear family, and Black education  (which prior to Johnson’s meddling often scored higher on national tests than predominantly White school systems).  Once Johnson’s “Great Society” was fully implemented, Black unemployment soared, the Black nuclear family disintegrated, and the new Black dependency on government caused Johnson to infamously remark, “I’ll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years!” [NB: WOOF dutifully reports here that SNOPES, while going so far as to admit that “There’s no question that Lyndon Johnson…was…a sometime racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private,” still doesn’t think Johnson said this, because nobody at SNOPES has seen enough evidence. WOOF has, but we like to give SNOPES equal time. Also, we will let readers know if SNOPES replies to our request for information regarding what a “sometime racist” might be.]

Kemp contra Kipling?

Remember Jack Kemp’s urban enterprise zones? Probably not. The whole concept was doomed to perish as soon as liberalism retrieved the Oval Office.

kempOne of the most hideously malformed proofs of the hopelessly advancing political sclerosis besetting the GOP was its 1996 presidential ticket, which may be recalled with effort by the mnemonically gifted as advancing the proposition that Bob Dole would make a terrific president, and that Jack Kemp might come in handy as his running mate. In terms of vitality, creativity, and salability to the public, this match-up might be likened to having the Beatles open for Herman’s Hermits. Kemp, the congressional leader of the brain trust behind Reaganomics, was ushered into the number two slot behind the prehistoric Dole, a man who used to tell dead supply-sider jokes on the floor of congress. The result, predictably was another four years of Bill Clinton…but at least good old Bob had his turn in the grand Republican tradition.

So they nominated Bush Senior--really?

So they nominated Bush Senior–really?

But the American Presidency wasn’t the only slot Kemp would have excelled in but never got offered. A few years earlier, he’d come up with a means of bailing out America’s failing cities and the minority populations that inhabited them. Of course, pundits will cluck their tongues and insist that Kemp’s plan for urban enterprise zones was tried and failed—and that is, indeed, the urban myth surrounding the initiative. But like a lot of things everybody knows, it isn’t so.

During his career, Kemp was bored stiff by the mediocre, and the near-mediocre.

During his career, Kemp was often bored stiff by the mediocre, and the near-mediocre.

True, in 1993 Congress passed Kemp’s plan, which the Clinton administration attempted to enact, and, true again, it didn’t work. But Kemp’s proposal bore scant resemblance to the hodge-podge deployed by the Clinton administration. Predictably, Clinton’s version proceeded from a vision of government’s role in the creation of economic growth that was diametrically distinct to Kemp’s. Kemp’s original intent was to promote the entrepreneurial development of abandoned urban areas by laying them open to the creative energies of local residents unbound by governmental red tape and boosted by Federal funds.. True to form, Clinton restructured the entire process as a hand-out to major corporate participants awash in a veritable sea of regulatory provisions certain to exclude local participation except at the most menial levels.  Worked Kemp’s way, the gift of personal responsibility and creativity would have been offered the inner city, and incentivized by Federal dollars ultimately recoverable as revenue.  Urban denizens might well have flourished. Run Clinton’s way, well….the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. And therein lies an important lesson:

Concerning rats…

wfbDecades ago, William F. Buckley, Jr. was debating Black civil rights leaders on his television program, Firing Line, when one of them glared in his direction and offered, as a kind of pre-emptive condemnation of White insouciance, the datum that “There are rats in Harlem!” Buckley agreed that Harlem was overrun with rats, but added, “You make it seem as though I personally sneak into Harlem every night and with a sort of gleeful chuckle, plop down a rat.” His point bollixed his guest. If Harlem has rats, he seemed to suggest, why haven’t the residents of Harlem taken the necessary eradicative measures? Or failing this, why haven’t they prevailed upon their own recurrently-elected yet notoriously phlegmatic officials to allocate funds and personnel toward this end?  This is exactly the line of reason–exactly the part of the “conversation on race”–that the Liberal Church of Sanctified Victimization cannot abide.  The moment personal responsibility enters the dialogue, Kipling’s worldview vanishes. So long as personal responsibility is banished from the dialogue, Kipling’s worldview is inescapable.  So, gentle readers–you probably figure we’re going to let our beloved William F. have the last word on this matter–but no!  When we at WOOF decide to discuss rats, we aren’t messing around.


It would be churlish to call this Leon’s finest moment…we suppose.

The Russian word расистов is a translation of racist, or rather, vice versa. The coinage is often attributed to Leon Trotsky, and while WOOF cannot state with certitude that the communist revolutionary with the ice axe sticking in his head is the progenitor of the term, he certainly made fond use of it.  And there is no doubt that word has obtained a utility beyond its justifiable applications in denouncing anyone who suggests anything related to race relations that might lie outside the purview of political correctitude as daily upgraded by the powers of the liberal academy. We know full well, therefore, that a conga line of shatterpated commenters will form almost immediately to denounce your humble editors and authors as “RACIST!” for daring to suggest that Black Americans take charge of their own future, and give up the idea that it is best dictated to them by the White Leftist Elite and their loyal crew of race-bating “civil rights leaders” who maintain status in accordance with how satisfactorily the Democrat party rates their performances.  Unless they do so, the American liberal and the DNC will eternally assume the White Man’s Burden as a feigned moral necessity, continually employ it as a political lever, and continually deliver nothing except poverty, division, acrimony, and distrust whenever that lever is pulled.  It’s been going on since LBJ invented high-rise housing for Black families– does anyone realistically suppose it will change?

The Great Society

The Great Society

So Trotsky gets the last word, and that word is “racist.” Trotsky used the term as a propagandistic utensil,, and it certainly caught on. We at WOOF dislike to be called racists because we aren’t–but we’re used to it.  We also know that a lot of people really are racist, and we hate that.  But beyond the looney blatherings of Klansmen, Skin Heads, certain of the “Alt Right,” “liberals” like LBJ and those thousands of DNC functionaries who even today deprecate Blacks privately while fawning over them publically, surely the most racist concept in today’s America is the notion that Blacks cannot succeed without Whites showing the way, paying the expenses, handing out largesse and directing the show. This message comes relentlessly from the Left. For decades it was disguised as compassion, but nowadays, as Americans of European ancestry are charged with confessing and lamenting their “White Privilege,” it proceeds equally from an assumption of ethnic guilt–a guilt that may be expiated only by dispensing massive sums of money and promises of preferential treatment to properly certified victims populating the Racial Left.

Hyphens away!

We believe that Americans of African descent will begin to awaken to this fact, not by tumult, but slowly and increasingly. The Left, of course,  is betting they never catch on. Until they do, Kipling’s poesy will remain a perversely applicable fact of life for all of us– in a way Kipling never perceived nor intended. And the White liberal establishment must conceal  Kipling’s ghostly presence in its approach to Civil Rights, in order to maintain its politicians’ electability. WOOF, however, calls on all Americans to free Kipling of his unforeseen roll in our national approach to race relations, to free American minorities of decades of tyranny imposed in the name of Federal assistance, and to cast off the chains of “multicultural” dogma imprisoning us in isolated social redoubts wherein we are so easily manipulated.  We especially say to the nation’s minorities, cast off victimhood and  unite with us in the American adventure! You have nothing to lose but your hyphens!WOOF PRINT


Save the Mastodon! Oh, wait…on second thought, don’t bother! (Why Conservatism and the GOP Don’t Play Well Together.)

In "Dead Elephant in the Room" forum on July 5, 2016 at 11:23 am


Few would take us to task for observing that conservatives are currently more disillusioned with the Republican Party than during any previous time in the GOP’s history. And for us to say something that few would take us to task for is nearly unprecedented, so permit us to bask in the moment. Okay, done. Now, allow us two additional points: First, that the GOP is about to implode, and second, no matter what immediate alarm this may cause conservatism, the ultimate result may be benign—even providential—for the American Right. To these auguries we boldly add our conviction that the GOP has never been a natural abode of conservatism, and is in most respects no less hostile to its doctrines than are the Democrats. See, now we went and made a lot of people angry—but we’re still the same lovable band of good-natured counterrevolutionaries we always were, so why not have a stiff drink and bear with us?

scatter chart for use

Scientific proof of Republican mendacity–or at least it would be, except we just pasted in a positive scattergram off the Internet–but you get the idea.

Consider the folly of assuming that most Republican candidates intend to pursue the programs of action they advocate while campaigning, or adhere to the broadly conservative philosophies they grandly enunciate.  We contend that a scatter chart depicting the relationship between conservative assertions made by Republicans during campaigns with the levels of empirically demonstrable deception assignable to each assertion viewed in retrospect, would produce, in the majority of cases, an impressively positive correlation. That’s from a Cartesian standpoint. From the standpoint of a concerned voter whose beliefs lie in the conservative arena, such correlations are neither impressive nor positive–they are downright infuriating.  Conservatives may also wish to consider the pathological implications of remaining, of their own volition, in a political “family” that not only deceives them in this fashion, but scorns and ridicules them whenever their backs are turned; a family that pesters them routinely for cash, promising specific outcomes, but having received the cash fulfills none of its promises and repays the contributors by pursuing outcomes antithetic to their  wishes and contrary to the understandings upon which the funds were solicited.  Put another way, American conservatives are treated by the GOP in a manner analogous to how Black Americans are treated by the DNC.


Why was Frederick Douglass so much smarter than Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, and President Obama? (Even put together.)

Birth of a Notion


Henry Clay ran for president as a Whig but Jackson defeated him, For one thing, Jackson had better hair. Clay should have tried a wig.

The creation of the Republican Party was largely a result of the collapse of the Whig Party. Seen any Whigs lately? No you haven’t—and that’s because they vanished from the political landscape, victims of rancorous internecine conflicts that eroded their foundational vision until it became unrecognizable and unserviceable. And doesn’t that sound familiar? When we think of Whigs nowadays, which mostly we don’t, we tend to imagine a quirkish, ephemeral batch of regional lightweights who faded mainly because they had a dopey name and got no traction—but this is largely untrue. Initially founded in opposition to the populist caprices of Andrew Jackson whom they (quite sensibly) considered a dangerous mountebank spreading newfangled socioeconomic ideas by force of personality rather than Constitutional law, the Whigs sought to limit the powers of the executive and expand those of congress. Their numbers included Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and William Henry Harrison.

Harrison won the presidency in 1840, pledging to serve only one term in keeping with the Whigs’ conviction that constitutional governance demanded strictly limited tenures in office. Harrison proved better than his word, delivering the longest inaugural address in American history (lasting two full hours despite frantic editing by Daniel Webster) and is popularly reputed to have caught cold during the event leading to his death three weeks later of pneumonia, or pleurisy, or enteric fever, depending on which historians one deems credible; but in any case, well within his self-imposed term limit.

zachary and horse

“Old Rough and Ready” (Zachary Taylor), with “Old Whitey,” his beloved horse. Whitey, who preferred to graze on the White House lawn, passed on the fruit and milk and lived to a ripe old age.

Whig Zachary Taylor lasted longer in the presidency, but he too met an ignominious end. Independence Day in Washington, (1850), was a scorcher, and while celebrating the holiday Taylor reportedly consumed “raw fruit and iced milk” and fell ill. His doctor diagnosed him with “cholera morbus,” and despite intensive medical treatment, or possibly because of it, he died. Whig Millard Fillmore thereupon assumed office where he earned the distinction of being the only Whig president who didn’t die there.

Thanks, Millard Fillmore!

Thanks, Millard Fillmore!

He didn’t do much else, however, unless one counts ordering Commodore Matthew Perry to open trade routes with Japan, which, as we now know, ultimately resulted in the tragic death by suicide of Madame Butterfly, to say nothing of World War II. Also at this time, a young Illinois Whig named Abraham Lincoln (you knew we were getting there, right?) first gained attention as an outspoken opponent of expansion into Texas. But Abe soon abandoned politics, possibly after realizing how drastically misguided were his criticisms of the whole Texas thing, and returned to practicing law–during which period he famously appeared as Henry Fonda in John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln.

The Grand New Party!

But more to our point, as even the most benighted graduates of our annihilative educational system must be dimly aware, Mr. Lincoln soon returned to the political arena, and this time it was personal…

lincoln images

Today’s Republican Party was founded in 1854 by a confluence of ex-Whigs, Free Soilers (a short-lived single issue party whose purpose was to prevent slavery from expanding into the western territories), and other anti-slavery factions.  The Whig Party was by then so riven with acrimony, ambivalence and dissent that it barely registered as a speed bump on the Republicans’ path to the schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, where their firm abolitionist policies and unyielding belief that slavery was an intolerable evil sufficed to unify the young party.


Fremont: First GOP nominee, first GOP loser, got a whole state named after him in James Michener’s novel “Space.” How does that even work, really?

The first Republican convention began and ended on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. John C. Fremont actually won the first-ever Republican nomination and rallied the Northern states. He lost, however, to James Buchanan who managed to woo the support of a large segment of the “Know Nothing Party” despite the Republican Party’s vastly superior campaign slogan, to wit: “Free Soil, Free Men, and Fremont” which might have proved more effective had there been bumpers in 1856.

Team Abe

Lincoln's supporters took full advantage oof the fact that the uv light was not yet invented, meaning the absent security strips on forged tickets went unnoticed! l

Lincoln’s supporters took full advantage of the fact that the uv light was not yet invented, meaning the absent security strips on forged tickets went unnoticed!

By contrast, Lincoln’s presidential campaign of 1860 was encumbered with the slogan “He’s the rail candidate!” But before you scoff, consider that besides bolstering the case for hanging inept punsters, this conspicuously flawed attempt at drollery served to further publicize the lanky Kentuckian’s image as a wood-splitting, incorruptible rustic. Historians generally agree the electorate’s fascination with Honest Abe’s back-story (embellished though it were) played a substantial part in securing his eventual nomination. We say eventual because Abe owed his nomination to the vagaries of a brokered convention. Yes, gentle readers, Lincoln secured his party’s nomination on the third ballot, thanks largely to a good deal of connivance, agitation, and back-room bargaining orchestrated by his devoted (and crafty) supporters, many of whom crept into the convention with counterfeited tickets. Withal, Team Abe pioneered groundbreaking techniques of skullduggery that took behind-the-scenes intrigue to a level that, in retrospect, seems almost visionary…thus the “Man from Hardin County” finished ahead of William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and a sprinkling of less eminent contenders.

chase on bill

Salmon Chase had the best name, though–kind of American Indian-sounding, only not. At least he got to be on the ten-thousand dollar bill.  No, really.

President Abe

Given the well-known intellectual superiority of our loyal readership, it embarrasses us to rehearse such absurdly obvious particulars as the fact that Lincoln proceeded to win the general election, but we are obliged to risk incurring your displeasure for the sake of keeping our casual readers informed, some of whom may be Common Core products. Everyone else presumably knows that Lincoln defeated Douglas—and as a matter of fact, simultaneously defeated John C. Breckenridge, the breakaway southern Democrat, and the Constitutional Party’s John Bell. Of all the candidates, Lincoln was the only one who gave no speeches during the campaign, which may account for his success.

War torn Abe


We discovered this photo at Deviant Art, & while we have been unable to authenticate it, it would have been difficult to hoax as there was no Photoshop in the 1860s.

Lincoln’s election so offended his southern states that they seceded from the Union. Lincoln took the view that secession was impermissible, thus necessitating the Civil War, which was really about slavery, but keep that to yourself. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in territories not under Union control. As “Uncle Billy” Sherman advanced farther south, more slaves were freed until all three million slaves held by the Confederacy were emancipated. Lincoln’s outspoken support contributed to the passage of the 13th Amendment, which criminalized slavery throughout the Republic even as Lincoln became the first president to blockade portions of his own country, or to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, an action that continues to draw criticism as unconstitutional, although Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 indicates (WOOF submits) otherwise.

Dead Abe

Obviously, Lincoln secured his legacy while avoiding extensive criticism of his wartime executive actions by attending a performance of “Our American Cousin” at Ford Theater where John Wilkes Booth fired a single ball from a .44 caliber derringer into the back of Mr. Lincoln’s head. As the smoke cleared, Lincoln’s mootable abuses of constitutional writ as well as his ostensibly ambivalent civil-rights utterances became the province of obscure professors and historians—who argue the fine points to this day, unnoticed. The popular takeaway included freeing the slaves, reunifying the country, compassion for the South in defeat, and a persona of wit and wisdom. Oh, and a lot of really fascinating ghostly-slash-paranormal occurrences into which we have no time delve; but that’s why we have the History Channel, after all.

Booth imagined that shooting Lincoln would make him wildly popular, which may explain why he auditioned for the stage version of 'Peter Pan' immediately afterward.

Booth imagined that shooting Lincoln would make him wildly popular, which may explain why he took a moment to audition for the stage version of ‘Peter Pan’ immediately afterward.


Fast forwarding….or the part you can skip if you already know it all.

To avoid unnecessarily boring anyone, we will now breeze swiftly through the list of Republican presidents who followed Lincoln, pausing here and there for lengthier discussion should their tenures warrant.

grant imagesUlysses Simpson Grant, 1869-1877: arguably conservative in his support of  gold-based, anti-inflationary hard money and paying off the national debt with gold. He reduced government spending and limited the federal work force. His active reliance on the military to enforce civil rights laws and protect African Americans may be understood in terms of the postwar environment, especially since James West and Artemus Gordon didn’t really exist. Grant drank a lot and enjoyed cigars, which may explain why Mark Twain supported him. His administration was organizationally corrupt, but like we said, he drank a lot and probably didn’t notice.

Rutherford B. Hayes, 1877-1881: Lost the popular vote but won an acrimoniously contested electoral victory when a Congressional commission ceded him 20 votes intensely disputed by Democrats. Unable to blame the Supreme Court until approximately the same thing occurred in 2000, Democrats conceded the election only because Hayes agreed to pull the military out of the Southern states, where Democrats strongly preferred leaving civil rights issues to the KKK.  He may be credited with a Reagan-esque affirmation of the Monroe Doctrine in denouncing France’s efforts to build the Suez Canal, which didn’t really matter because France proved unable to build it in any case. He is occasionally described as a “fiscal conservative,” but the evidence is thin.

James A. Garfield, 1881 – 1881: Strove to enhance free trade and modernize the navy but was interrupted in these endeavors through no fault of his own.  A disgruntled underling concealed himself, progressively enough, by hiding in the ladies’ room at the Sixth Street Railroad Station whither Garfield expected to depart on vacation. Instead, he was shot in the back, following which the exertions of his physicians finished him off.

Chester A. Arthur, 1881-1885: Assumed the presidency after Garfield’s unscheduled departure. During his single term, the New York Sun wrote, “no adventurous project alarmed the nation,” and while that may not seem a solely conservative encomium, one can hardly avoid reflecting that no such comments will be uttered at the terminus of the current office-holder’s tenure.

Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893: Son of William Henry Harrison, (who caught cold and died earlier, remember?). Harrison drove through the McKinley Tariff, imposing unprecedented protections on trade, while simultaneously attempting to federalize educational funding (at which he failed—but those were the good old days). He nevertheless managed to hike federal spending to the tune of one-billion dollars.

William McKinley, 1897-1901:Fought what were aptly entitled the Inflationary Acts and kept America on the gold standard, but imposed more tariffs on trade. McKinley is best known for getting shot to death by Paul Czolgosz, an Anarchist from Detroit who approached the President in Buffalo, opening fire with a .32 caliber Iver Johnson revolver, not the “Johnson .41,” immortalized by Charlie Poole’s 1926 folk tune. Glad we could clear that up.

trimagesTR: 1901-1809: Nowadays Theodore Roosevelt is criticized by conservative theorists for his trust busting progressivism and support for labor unions, perhaps without appropriate consideration given the zeitgeist. That aside, TR enlarged and brandished the Great White Fleet, settled the Russo-Japanese war back in the day when if a President won the Nobel Peace Prize it was for actually accomplishing something, and built the Panama Canal after creating Panama. While it is difficult to view TR’s crusades against the railroads and other perceived monopolies as conservative, his ebullient patriotism, full throated support for American exceptionalism and military might, his abhorrence of “hyphenated” Americanism, and his zealous support of the Second Amendment deliver him from the liberal camp. He also despised Woodrow Wilson, which is always an indication of sound judgment. Readers who doubt TR’s red-white-and-blue bonafides are advised to view John Milius’s 1975 masterpiece, The Wind and the Lion, in which Brian Keith “becomes” (as gushy film critics like to say) President Roosevelt.  And if you can’t base your opinions on John Milius movies, what’s left, right?

William Howard Taft, 1909-1913: Roosevelt’s protégé, began office as a trust-busting, conservationist in the TR mold, but swung a bit starboard for Teddy’s tastes even as the former president swung further toward progressivism.  Taft dabbled at trust busting, but directed his energies toward U.S. Steel, which TR had guaranteed immunity from such matters. The two men soon became enemies. Teddy therefore ran to Taft’s social left in the next election in an effort to unseat his former disciple. His plan was a partial success, since TR’s Bull Moose Party split the vote, ousting Taft but ensuring an easy path to the White House for the execrable Woodrow Wilson. Oops.


Harding always looks kind of angry in his photos, but in reality he really knew how to enjoy himself.

Warren G. Harding, 1921-1923: After Wilson gave us big labor, the federal income tax, World War I, a failed military adventure in Mexico, a failed military adventure in Russia,   the Federal Reserve, abject racism in the Oval Office and prohibition, Harding seemed like a breath of fresh air…if not exactly presidential in the strict sense.  At his inaugural he confused pretty much everybody by declaring “”Our most dangerous tendency is to expect too much from the government and at the same time do too little for it.” Immediately afterward, he left for Texas on vacation, after which he took a lengthy cruise. He drank in the Oval Office, engaged in open cronyism, invented the previously unknown word “normalcy,” enjoyed cards, cigars, and mistresses, but revitalized the executive branch’s support for civil rights. He died—probably of heart failure—during his first term. He was in no significant respect a conservative, but we still kind of like him.

Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929: This is the man whose portrait graced the walls of Reagan’s White House because his presidency embodied the economic concept of laissez-faire. As was the case with most of his Republican predecessors, Coolidge strove to enhance the civil rights of Black Americans; while his staunch advocacy of small government, free-market economics, and a foreign policy unfettered by unnecessary entanglements and alliances, established the template for 20th century conservatism. He and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon even advanced the novel hypothesis that lowering taxes would increase federal revenues, making Coolidge America’s first supply-sider.

1927, Washington, DC, USA --- 1927-Calvin Coolidge, named Chief Leading Eagle by the Sioux. 1927. BPA2# 2387 --- Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS

In 1927 the Sioux bestowed the tribal name “Chief Leading Eagle” on Coolidge and gave him a war bonnet. It must be born in mind that the native peoples of that era were poorly educated and had yet to be taught by the white man of the evils of cultural appropriation.


Let us pause here, in the fond afterglow of Calvin Coolidge, gentle readers, to ask ourselves: What discernible lineaments of something we might call American Conservatism are detectable in this chronology? Occasional tropisms manifest themselves here and there, but the idea that the Republican Party is consanguine with conservatism in North America is a myth, and the swing of the Democratic Party toward the extreme left is as much responsible for it as anything accomplished by Republican office holders.  If that seems an odd assertion, consider: Nothing more effectively vouchsafes the good standing of one sibling than the misbehavior of another—and the radical descent of the Democrat party into overt collectivism is as much responsible for the chimera of Republican conservatism as anything done or uttered by Taft or Coolidge, even if anybody in the GOP remembered anything uttered by Taft or Coolidge.


The notorious Herbert Hoover

The first Republican widely identified as “conservative” is, of course, the notorious Herbert Hoover, whose stars so aligned that his presidency collided with the Great Depression, meaning that the Liberal Establishment Media have made his name synonymous with food lines, joblessness, and  conservative indifference. School children in the United States do not know much nowadays, but if they know anything at all about the depression, they know Hoover caused it, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved us from it. Ever since the smoke cleared from the Second World War, Americans have been deluged by entertainments and histories of every description dedicated to propounding this humbug.

Herbert Hoover-one thing everyone agrees on is that he lacked FDR's genial panache.

Herbert Hoover-one thing everyone agrees on is that he lacked FDR’s genial panache.

Poor Hoover—even Coolidge disliked him, resisting his candidacy at first, telling friends that “for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad.” It didn’t help that shortly after his election, awash in the post-war boom that characterized the “Roaring Twenties,” Hoover boldly predicted the end of scarcity in America, telling an audience: “We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land.”  Perhaps in anticipation, Hoover set about closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, enlarging the civil service, signing the inflationary Glass-Steagall Act allowing prime rediscounting at the Federal Reserve, doubling estate taxes and hiking corporate rates by 15 percent. When the depression hit, Hoover sought to counteract it by enacting the largest peacetime tax increase in history. He signed the Smoot Hawley Tariffs, which incurred a wave of international protectionism and deepened the panic.

The brilliant Murray Rothbard. Hey, Franklin, we got your anarcho-economics right here!

The brilliant Murray Rothbard, father of anarcho-economics.

He next championed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, authorizing a flood of funds for public works programs, and created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, putting government into the business of bailing out business. Hoover, in other words, was by no means the aloof  practitioner of laissez-faire economics he is remembered as. In fact, Libertarian historian Murray Rothbard dubbed him the true father of the New Deal—a characterization Rothbard did not intend politely. Plainly, it is as ridiculous to view Hoover as the trickle-down free-marketeer who tried to ignore the Depression and pursue business as usual, as it is to portray FDR as the visionary egalitarian who saved us from it.  In fact, the Depression demonstrably worsened under FDR’s presidency. It was ended in 1941 by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned and oversaw the bombing of Pearl Harbor…but he never gets any credit.

admiral yamamota

Yamamoto gets little praise for awakening an industrial base FDR nearly suffocated–but we guess Shakespeare was right: “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with the Arizona and the Oklahoma.”

“Boy the way Glenn Miller played…”

all in the familyIn 1971, leftist TV producer Norman Lear introduced America to Archie Bunker, the cigar-champing, racist, ill-educated patriarch of the Bunker family on the wildly popular sitcom All in the Family. Archie (actor Carroll O’Connor) was intended by Lear to epitomize American conservatism, a perception that took root mainly among liberals (making them even easier to defeat in debate). Each week, Archie and wife Edith were viewed crooning the show’s opening theme, “Those Were the Days,” during which, Archie musically averred, “Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again!” This by way of shoring up our 31st president’s painstakingly artifiicialized legacy in which the name Hoover is deemed synonymous with right-wing indifference to the little guy.

Still today, Hoover’s main function in U.S. history is to exemplify the heartlessness of unchecked capitalism, and to serve as a heuristic juxtaposition to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose New Deal policies are portrayed as a knick-of-time intervention that rescued Americans from the death grip of the free market.

The rehabilitation of Annie….

anie one

Annie may have grown up in an orphanage, but she obviously kept the complete works of Friedrich Hayek under her pillow!

Who doesn’t resonate to the sardonic strains of “We’d Like to Thank You, Herbert Hoover!” from the musical Annie? But Annie exemplifies the distortion of reality imperative to liberal revisionism. Besides reinforcing the nonsense about Hoover, it blithely ignores the fact that Harold Gray’s original cartoon heroine despised FDR and all his works. In fact, Gray’s “Little Orphan Annie” strip, although massively popular, was banned by several major newspapers because it was deemed too critical of Roosevelt and his policies. The Broadway musical and subsequent film recast Annie as a worshipful moppet cuddled adoringly in Roosevelt’s lap, while Daddy Warbucks chuckles in good-natured acquiescence. (O, the infamy!)

Is nothing sacred?

Ugh! Is nothing sacred?

A final layer of irony atop these falsities is the Right’s naive readiness to suppose, in keeping with the leftist agitprop, that Hoover’s legacy somehow anchored conservatism to the Republican brand.

“Irritable mental gestures…”

Lionel Trilling--never one to gesture

Lionel Trilling–never one to gesture irritably; always sophisticatedly mental.

In 1950, Lionel Trilling assured his sophisticated readership that “in the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition…. It is the plain fact [that] there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.” Trilling is often derided for his obtuseness in this regard, but unjustly. At the time, conservatism as an ideological influence in American politics was virtually undetectable. Trilling covered his bet slightly by adding that occasional conservative grumblings were more probably attributable to “irritable mental gestures which seem to resemble ideas.” Thus, the sprinkling of radio and newspaper commentators who took identifiably right-of-center positions were consigned to a kind of menagerie of idiosyncratic oddballs–but Trilling’s smugness was short-lived.

Have your next cup of steaming java in your very own Julius & Ethel Rosenberg commemorative mug! (It's the bomb!)

Have your next cup of morning java in your very own Ethel & Julius Rosenberg commemorative mug! (It’s the bomb!)

As the Cold War dawned in stark confutation of the carefully concocted fantasy that Mother Russia was our good friend and noble ally, it became inconveniently obvious that Democrats played the chief role in accommodating Stalin while placing America’s interests on hold (when not selling them out completely). Despite this, the anti-Communist reaction to the New Deal’s betrayals was surprisingly bipartisan.  Today, of course, our children learn that this was that silly “Red Scare,” when otherwise sensible Americans began to hallucinate en masse, seeing agents of the Kremlin behind every tree and shrub. In fact, there were plenty of Reds to be scared of; communists practically owned the state department and guided presidential policies throughout the war and afterwards. They worked largely undetected as China fell to Mao and our nuclear secrets were channeled to Russia by “atom spies,” most of whom are now American folk heroes.

About HUAC: try to remember the good times!


HUAC is perhaps most reviled for grilling the Hollywood writers and directors they suspected of subversion–so here’s a good parlor game: Can you pick out members of the “Hollywood 10” who were not communists? Answer: No, you can’t.

The villains, of course, were the right-wing nutjobs manning the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which, while certainly subject to a variety of legitimate criticisms, was often an important vehicle of information, and never the Republican monopoly it is nowadays remembered as. Chairman Martin Dies was a Democrat, as was Joe Starnes of Alabama who memorably asked a witness during an investigation of the Federal Theater Project whether the Elizabethan playwright Christopher Marlowe was a member of the Communist Party. John Rankin, Democrat from Mississippi, once explained that HUAC would not investigate the KKK because “after all, [it] is an old American institution.” Edward J. Hart, Democrat from New Jersey, headed the Committee in its vital investigation of Alger Hiss, although Richard Nixon (R) played a key roll in helping Whittaker Chambers expose Hiss as a Red agent.  Nixon’s part in the pursuit of Hiss, immortalized for history by photos of Nixon staring fixedly into a hollow pumpkin (Chambers having hidden his photographic evidence of Hiss’s guilt in a pumpkin patch on his Maryland farm), seems to give liberals license to brand HUAC a Republican star chamber. Still more perplexingly, it is a rare liberal who won’t proceed to complain that the nefarious Joe McCarthy (Republican Junior Senator from Wisconsin) helmed the operation, driving it to ever-more-infernal excesses against the helplessly innocent. Even Bill O’Reilly once named Senator McCarthy as the House Committee’s chief villain, which, given a moment’s thought, is clearly impossible.

Remembering the Great Terror….

“I dunno, Roy, I think I’m sticking with the side of fries and the salad.”

It is also curiously difficult to find liberals who recall the early ’50s who do not thereupon pause to lament the tragic death of an uncle, close friend, or treasured professor, who is always said to have leapt from an  11th story window “because of Joe McCarthy!” To hear liberals tell it, one might reasonably assume that walking a municipal street in 1953 meant hazarding one’s life, given the cascade of bodies steadily thudding into the pavement.   In truth, the only corpse McCarthy’s exertions can reasonably be linked to is McCarthy’s. During HUAC’s primacy and throughout McCarthy’s supposed reign of terror, let’s say between 1947 and 1957, no American citizen was interrogated without benefit of legal counsel, no witness or suspect was arrested or detained without due judicial process, nor faced imprisonment without trial.  Compare this to the complaints from Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) only last June that citizens cannot be effectively disarmed because “due process is what’s killing us right now!” Joe McCarthy never arrested anyone, sent anyone to prison, or forced anybody out a window. In fact, the only death by suicide related to the McCarthy committee was the mysterious suicide of Ray Kaplan, who (apparently) jumped in front of a truck prior to testifying—but historians rarely mention that Kaplan was a friendly witness looking forward to testifying before the Subcommittee.  Hmmm.

Evel Knievel

Maybe learning golf might have helped...?

Farm boy arrives in the big city. Maybe learning golf might have helped…?

If McCarthy’s early popularity represented an identifiably conservative backlash against the perfidies of the New Deal and the architects of postwar accommodationism, it hardly represented the Republican Party. It was, after all, Mr. Republican himself, Dwight David Eisenhower, who orchestrated McCarthy’s demise, and who did so by enlisting his vice president’s talents as a backstage cutthroat. Disbelievers may check out William Bragg Ewald’s  Who Killed Joe McCarthy? which documents Ike’s issuance of a confidential fatwa against the Senator, prosecuted behind the scenes mainly by Nixon.  It is one of history’s hidden ironies that Nixon, whom liberals loathed as “the man who got Alger Hiss,” also got Tailgunner Joe.  In the establishment’s cherished tellings. the glory goes to Edward R. Murrow (first American to pioneer disguising maliciously edited propaganda as TV journalism). But in reality, McCarthy’s kamikaze-like dedication to anti-communism–his Black-Irish refusal to give an inch no matter the cost to himself or his career–worked in combination with his late-phase alcoholism to end his career and his life, leaving the Left to synonymize his name with the vilest infamies ever after. Somebody once asked Victor Gold whom McCarthy most reminded him of, and Gold replied without hesitating: “Evel Knievel!” Mister, we could use a man like Evel Knievel again.

evel aloft

Daddy’s dead.

daddyIn the aftermath of the New Deal, the renegade right-wing  Ivy League professor Willmoore Kendall explained in a letter: “It is not, in short, my faith in the majority which I’ve lost. The majority has, in sober truth, arrived at no conclusions in the last couple of years that, on the evidence offered to it, I could fairly have expected it to reject. My concern, and disillusionment, is with the people who could have given them evidence of another kind.”  He accused the wealthy and intellectual elites of “the most gigantic and unpardonable trahison des clercs of which History offers any record.”  It’s only gotten worse. The idea of an enlightened aristocracy is wonderfully Jeffersonian. One can relate it to Ayn Rand’s ideal of the creative titan who bemoans our collectivist stumblings and takes us grandly to task. But, as Kendall presaged, another sort of aristocracy now holds sway–a ruling class of anti-American academics, wealthy capitalists who embarrassedly denounce capitalism, slavishly liberal media morons, and a compliantly leftwing glitteratti. In other words, Howard Rourke turned out to be Mark Zuckerberg, and Daddy Warbucks is dead.

The Golfer….

ike the golferBut what about Eisenhower? Remembered now as the Republican conservative who gave us America’s golden era of postwar prosperity, he seems a likely mantle bearer for the Right; surely we can like Ike in confidence?  In his 1959 primer Up from Liberalism, William F. Buckley, Jr. denounced the Eisenhower administration passionately and, we submit, accurately. On one occasion, Eisenhower, buffeted by predictable Marxist denunciations from Soviet Defense Minister Georgy Zhukov, became frazzled, remarking that it was difficult to defend Western civilization against such claims. Buckley rightly reproved the President’s ambivalence, writing that Ike  “clearly did not know what he was defending, how to defend what he defended, or even whether what he defended was defensible.” Indeed, Eisenhower’s marked inability to stand against any communist demand in the European theater during and following, the war, bespeaks exactly such an absence of insight and conviction.

up indexBut Buckley wasn’t finished; he went on to denounce Eisenhower’s vision as: “…an attitude…undirected by principle, unchained to any coherent ideas as to the nature of man and society, uncommitted to any sustained estimate of the nature or potential of the enemy.” Eisenhower, Buckley lamented, seemed “to govern in a fashion as to more or less please more or less everybody.” This may explain why everybody liked Ike, but it also confirms that he was in no strict sense a conservative. It also explains why Richard Welsh of the John Birch Society accused Eisenhower of being a communist, a charge he demanded Buckley address at a conservative banquet. Welsh listed his compilation of Ike’s sins of omission, each of which, he noted, advanced the cause of international communism, and demanded, “So Bill, doesn’t that make him a communist?” Buckley replied, “No, Richard, it makes him a golfer.”

Stolen convention!!

goldwater“What in God’s name has happened to the Republican Party?” angsted Henry Cabot Lodge as he staggered out of the febrile 1964 Republican Convention, “I hardly know any of these people!” And the most important person he didn’t know was Clif White. White parked himself in a trailer outside California’s Cow Palace and operated like a chess master. He had already led stunningly successful grassroots movements in several states recruiting delegates for the conservative cause, and now he orchestrated through a battery of telephones and walkie talkies, the seizure of the GOP convention for the advancement of an authentic conservative, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.


Clif White, with time stamp because he was so frenetic they only have videos of him!

White opened a meeting of his right-wing irregulars by explaining “We’re going to take over the Republican Party!” He didn’t say “take it back,” because he knew better. And he succeeded. But only for one election season. Goldwater’s repudiation at the polls made conservatism a dirty word to the GOP establishment, which reasserted its authority firmly in 1968.  Barry Goldwater scared the bejabbers out of the Democrats and the Republicans.  Eisenhower despised him and the Rockefeller Wing of the party hated his guts. Beyond that, the GOP elite never got past the drubbing Goldwater endured on election day, which occurred in part because of the candidate’s hopelessly bluff campaign style. “Sometimes,” he casually remarked, “I think we oughta just lob one into the men’s room at the Kremlin.” Offered a swig of a campaign soda beverage named in his honor (“Goldwater”), the Senator winced and opined: “This tastes like piss!” Meanwhile, the incumbent, Lyndon Johnson, was successfully persuading millions of voters that his opponent was a psychotic nuclear Napoleon who hated Blacks, hated the poor, and yearned to plunge us–horror of horrors–into a war in Vietnam. Most of all, RINOs resent to this day that Goldwater’s candidacy laid down stakes for conservatism under their “big tent.”



Even now, the liberal establishment continues to complain about Goldwater, generally maintaining the same standard of zany implausibility. A writer for Politico relates in all apparent earnestness, that “Goldwater had once proposed literally—to saw off the eastern seaboard and let it float out to sea. This was no mere figure of speech.” (Dear Lord, what a maniac!) Fifty-two years after Goldwater’s flippant crack, and eighteen years after the man’s death, the liberal media are still spouting absurdities about him. Meanwhile, his warnings about social security’s insolvency, big government’s encroachments on our liberties, and liberalism’s assault on our Constitution and ethical standards have reified.  It is our contention that any authentic conservatism in American presidential politics began with Barry Morris Goldwater’s Quixotic 1964 campaign. It may have been a disaster, but it sewed the seeds of a powerful conservative movement–and one as savagely disparaged by the GOP elitists as by their Democrat counterparts.

The Keynesian

rmnAnd next comes….Richard Nixon.  Yes, he faced impeachment for offenses that fade to insignificance juxtaposed to the enormities routinely committed by the Obama Administration, and yes, G. Gordon Liddy and Pat Buchanan supported him, but his presidency bore few conservative earmarks. He ended the conflict in Vietnam and might well have saved South Vietnam from being overwhelmed by the communist north had he remained in office—but he didn’t.  His Kissinger-inspired mission of diplomacy to communist China during which he legitimated Mao Tse Tung on the world stage was, put succinctly, nauseous. He next unveiled his ultra-leftist “New Economic Plan,” featuring wage and price controls that exceeded Teddy Kennedy’s wildest dreams, explaining,“We are all Keynesians now.” Nixon also implemented federal affirmative action, proposed a single payer healthcare system almost 40 years before Barack Obama, and proposed a guaranteed annual income. He created the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration without whose assistance we might never have invented global warming. Three of four of Nixon’s Supreme Court appointees supported Roe vs. Wade.  Worse, he paranoiacally placed himself in a position that ultimately required his resignation and ramified in the elevation to office of Jerry Ford—a man whom David Susskind described with unaccustomed acuity as a “well-intentioned mediocrity.”

elvis and dick

Fun parlor game: Can you pick out the conservative in this picture? HINT: If there’s a liberal in the room, ask him which is the conservative, and pick the other guy!

LBJ liked to explain Ford's intellectual deficiencies as the result of playing college football without a helmet. Everyone thought he was kidding, but recently discovered photographic evidence seems to lend credence to Johnson's anecdote.

LBJ liked to explain Ford’s intellectual deficiencies as the result of playing college football without a helmet. Everyone thought he was kidding, but recently-discovered photographic evidence lends credence to Johnson’s anecdotes.

About Ford it may be said that he was indeed well-intentioned, and predispositionally less liberal than Nixon proved, but he is also the man who, as a Michigan Congressman, informed Lyndon Johnson that he and wife Betty were about to embark on a fact-finding mission to Vietnam whereupon Johnson took Ford’s hand in that warmly crocodilian way of his, and oiled “Jerry, while you’re there-be sure to visit the pagodas, they’re beautiful!” Ford replied, “Mr. President, we’re not only going to visit the Pagodas–Betty and I are going to have dinner with them!” In other words, Ford was unequipped to grasp the intricacies of any profoundly felt political philosophy, in consequence of which he was, of course, a moderate. He might be viewed as reminiscent of Eisenhower in this respect, sans Ike’s familiarity with command, or favorable zeitgeist. While debating Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ford insisted his presidency had kept Eastern Europe free of Soviet domination (a lapsus lingua he might easily have walked back, but regrettably chose to to defend–ineptly–giving Carter the win).  Carter pulled well ahead in the polls, especially with every news outlet in America proclaiming him a genius of previously unimagined proportions. Sound familiar?

rwr posterAs everyone now knows, Jimmy Carter’s only real genius turned out to be for messing the country up so badly that the only good thing about his term in office was that it virtually assured  the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan was our finest 20th Century president, a fact the Liberal Establishment remains devoted to obscuring by every means at its disposal. It remains mandatory liberal group think that Reagan was a clueless imbecile, but if so, he was an imbecile who saved the economy, made the energy crisis disappear, resurrected the military, cut taxes, rolled back the Brezhnev Doctrine in Grenada, bombed Gaddafi into reasonableness, and–yes–ended the Cold War, which particularly irritates liberals whose foreign-affairs gurus of that era uniformly preached the irresistible expansion of Soviet power and the absolute necessity of accommodation rather than confrontation. Asked what his strategy for managing Cold War tensions might be, Reagan smiled and rasped, “My strategy is pretty simple, really. We win, they lose.” Obviously, the Left hated him and hates him no less today–but it requires our attention here that the Republican party hated him almost as much, thwarting his 1976 effort to seize the nomination from President Ford, and resisting his 1980 campaign tooth and nail. Had it been left up to the GOP cognoscente, Jerry Ford would have once again led the ticket in 1980 despite his previously demonstrated inability to defeat Carter even as an incumbent.  As with Goldwater, the party brass thought Reagan was insane. These are the voices that today prod Republican voters, in condescendingly avuncular tones, to accept Reagan’s inappositeness to our current situation.


Jennifer Rubin –The Washington Post’s staff is prevailing on new owner Jeff Bezos to fire her–they think she’s much too conservative.

Take Jennifer Rubin, a faux-conservative on the Washington Post’s payroll, who mocks opposition to same sex marriage, higher taxes, and come-one-come-all immigration as “the conservatism of yesterday.” “In fact,” she counsels, these “conservative“ positions are not necessarily conservative; they are part of an effort to avert the party’s eyes from the dramatic economic, social, demographic and cultural changes that have taken place over the past 30 years. They confuse the Reagan-era expression of conservatism with conservatism itself.” This is essentially a Maoist brainwashing technique–the manipulation of meaning and narrative to, in this case, make conservatism appear to be something conservatism cannot be, otherwise known as liberalism.  Douglas MacArthur once reminded FDR that “the things I value never change,” and if this conservative axiom is replaceable by a pragmatism of the nonce, than nothing remains to conserve. Rubin goes on to lament that “reactionary” organizations like the Heritage Foundation have failed to evolve as she prescribes. Heritage has gone so astray, she says, that it now attempts to “insulate the party from heretics and cement an agenda it advanced 30 years ago.” Insulate the party? Is Rubin daft? The Party qua the Party fully expected to put Jeb Bush up against Hillary. It reviled Ted Cruz, whom Boehner called the spawn of Satan. Jennifer, your brand of “conservatism” is alive and well in the GOP. It is the conservative movement that is insulated from it. Your essential error, besides misunderstanding the conservative ethos, is confusing it with the Republican Party.

George the First

george 1George Herbert Walker Bush—what can we say? The man who said “read my lips, no new taxes,” and then forgot he said it, (possibly because he couldn’t tell Reaganomics from “Voodoo”–or maybe because he forgot to read his own lips) may at least be remembered as leading us to a crushing victory over Iraq in 1991, even though the bad guy got away…and despite the fact that the Presidential nerve might have failed, had Margaret Thatcher not insisted at an auspicious moment, “Oh, George, this is no time to go all wobbly!” (Thanks for that, Mrs. Thatcher!)

George, son of George

imagesNow about “W”—George 43 still enjoys a lot of right-of-center affection, and his support in general has grown considerably now that Americans have Obama to compare him to, but when you think about it, any American president compares favorably to the current office holder. And while “W” gets high points for tax cuts, supporting the sanctity of traditional marriage, opposing partial-birth abortion, and for his noble effort to reform social security through privatization (opposed by the Democrats who used their media machine to persuade Americans it was a crazed attempt to starve old people), it remains difficult to call his presidency conservative, especially given enthusiastic funding hikes for various government programs including the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health combined with “W’s” seeming unfamiliarity with the concept of the veto, creating spending explosions rivaling those incurred by Lyndon Johnson’s “Great-Society.” He must also be viewed as condoning illegal immigration–a blithe acceptance of foreign nationals streaming  across our southern border that amounted then, as now, to dereliction of duty by the executive branch.

A brief apostrophe to the unhinged:

It is also necessary, we suppose, to observe Bush’s involvement in 911, when he and Dick Cheney posed as elevator repairmen in order to dump massive volumes of Thermite into the elevator shafts of the World Trade Center, and then, having some left over, decided arbitrarily to do the same thing in Building Number 7,  which otherwise could not possibly have collapsed. Moreover, many consider Bush’s decision during Hurricane Katrina to blow up the dike system protecting New Orleans in order to drown Black people unacceptably racist and meanspirited. There, we got that out of the way, and now back to reality:


Oh, except to add: the whole Bush family and its chief advisers are reptile aliens from the Draco constellation– that’s right!–here’s photographic proof from the Internet!

Culling all CURs….

rimagesIn examining current efforts to drive conservatism from the ranks of the GOP, let’s look at the term RINO and consider its inherent inaccuracy. Calling left-leaning Republicans “Republican In Name Only” bolsters the misapprehension that Republican officials are conservative except for rare instances of apostasy when this or that misguided freshman may utter some sentiment at odds with his party’s profoundly dextral values. We have spent quite a few paragraphs demonstrating the ludicrosity of this characterization, so why not adjust the terminology to better fit the phenomenon?  A Republican majority capable of surrendering its power of the purse, rubber stamping Obama’s trade and budgetary disasters, cheerfully backing his errant globalism, “crossing the aisle” to seek “immigration reform,” ignoring its constitutional role in treaty ratification while permitting rule by fiat to continue unchallenged, and which preceded all this with a promise not to impeach the president no matter what–is in no respect a party of conservative opposition. It isn’t any sort of opposition. It is a confederacy of jelly fish…and the natural abode of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Susan Collins, Paul Ryan, and of course, Lindsey Graham, as the Beaver.

Ambrose Bierce

Ambrose Bierce

In his Devil’s Dictionary (1911), Ambrose Bierce reviewed the traditional parliamentary use of “honorable,” informing his readers that “In legislative bodies it is customary to mention all members as honorable.” To demonstrate, Bierce offered his readers a sample locution, namely, “the honorable gentleman is a scurvy cur.” A “cur,” of course, is a dog, or, according to Merriam Webster, “a dog that is a mix of different breeds : a low, bad, or disliked dog,” and by metaphoric extension, ” a surly or cowardly fellow.” This serves nicely, we think, as a more descriptive acronym for Republican hacks who hide their progressive identities and play at conservatism until the rubes send them back to Washington.  Such politicians may be 100% Republican–but they are only Conservatives Until Reelected. 

The CURs, we submit, have damaged the GOP beyond repair.  The new media have made it impossible for them to win elections pretending to be Barry Goldwater only to serve out their terms as Lowell Weicker; and simply  having an “R” after one’s name no longer beguiles the yokels.  As Romney’s loss in 2012 proved, faced with the option of voting for the lesser of two evils, at least 3 million registered Republicans won’t vote at all. Thus, while it may be perfectly defensible to say Republicans have no obligation to be conservative, it is equally true that without its conservative base, the GOP has no hope of winning elections, and conservatives have no obligation to be Republicans.

A quantum of solace…


The title is from a James Bond short story by Fleming, recently coopted as the title of a Bond film which, keeping with tradition, bore no recognizable resemblance to the short story.

The CURs (or RINOs) have yet to absorb this reality. When they do, they will not attempt to be more authentically conservative–they will blame conservative talk radio–which they already hate with a passion– and “cross the aisle” to look statesmanlike in their eagerness to help rid America of it.  It won’t help.  The rubes are hip, and the GOP elites have already exhausted what Ian Fleming might call the electorate’s quantum of solace. Promising to be good over and over won’t work in most districts–but even if voters in some states are preternaturally forgiving, other factors threaten destruction for other reasons.

The Trump card….

trump cardTalk radio is also widely blamed by the GOP for Donald Trump, an irony of near-Sophoclean proportions. Trump, no matter what else may be said of  him, is a sort of political tulpa conjured in wrath by a scorned electorate. As such, he may wittingly or unwittingly become the agent of doom for the GOP. One may freely despise, love, or wax indifferent to Donald Trump personally and still see three ways he could terminate the Republicans. First, and most topically, the GOP may yet contrive to deny Trump the party’s nomination by steamrolling him at the convention and replacing him with some acceptable CUR–somebody they know we’d prefer, too, if we weren’t so stupid.  The immediate result in Cleveland, obviously, would be blood on the walls–but this eludes the CURs, so nestled are they within the Beltway bubble. Besides, if Trump is unseated, he will run independently–and the GOP will come in third. If he wins the  floor fight at the convention, he will run as a Republican, but the entire Republican infrastructure will go up in flames. The third possibility is one in which Trump receives the GOP nomination, runs against Hillary, and loses. This would entail substantial numbers of big-name Republicans siding with Hillary, some overtly, others implicitly or secretly. WOOF knows the Republican “leadership” currently favors this option–a gambit, they believe, in which a tactical sacrifice (the White House) conduces toward a strategic victory (the party leadership remains intact and retains its power).  But a party that prefers keeping its Good Old Boys unruffled to winning the presidency is functionally moribund.  The GOP is wilfully embracing extinction–a mastodon strolling heedlessly toward the La Brea Tar Pits, contemplating lunch.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell--our man crushing the Tea Party

Senate Majority Leader McConnell–protecting us from the Tea Party.

For the time being, Mitch McConnell may be able to wheel, deal, backstab and fundraise on such a scale that his vow to “crush [the Tea Party] everywhere” seems plausible, but this is hardly to say rational.   Once conservatives awaken to the level of philosophical rejection such rantings embody, and the chilling degree of amoral self-absorption they betray–  they will storm the exits. Without them, the GOP cannot win elections. Trump supporters, taken as another subset of GOP voters, may overlap the conservatives, but in many important respects they are a distinct species. Lose the Trumpites and the party loses not only their passion and sheer numbers– it simultaneously writes off many freshly recruited Independents, Hispanics, Blacks, and yes, Gays, who arrived with Trump. At some juncture the CUR leadership may realize that saving the party from “threats” like Cruz, Paul, Lee, and such embarrassing rustics as Sarah Palin, leaves them with tickets exclusively featuring their squishy, unprincipled “moderate” chums, whom millions of registered Republicans rightly despise.

A cautionary prehistoric tale… 

spear tipThe precursor to the elephant, the mastodon, disappeared from the North American continent at the end of the Pleistocene period, around 11,000 years ago. Most contemporary theorists now agree that the population dwindled over centuries rather than vanishing as the result of some sudden catastrophe. It is increasingly theorized, moreover, that humans may have played a key role–a theory that met with establishment scorn until a 13,800-year-old spear tip was found embedded in a Mastodon’s ribs. Soon more spear tips showed up in Mastodon skulls and ribcages.

Did cavemen kill the mastodons and then dump them in tar pits as a counter-forensic ploy? Whatever the case, those little cave dwellers who were not even supposed to exist before the Clovis period, hunted the Mastodon, possibly to extinction, or at least assisted nature in effecting its demise. And despite growing evidence to this effect, many archeologists persist in RINO-like levels of denial.”Maybe,” one expert told London’s Daily Mail, “the reason was something completely different, for instance the climate.” And we suspect the Mastodons were just as dismissive of those pesky pre-Clovisians in their day. Perhaps they concocted derogatory nicknames for them– although nobody at this remove can recall the pre-Clovisian term for “tea bagger.”

“That does it, I’m not doing any more of these town hall appearances!”

thumbnail_largeSoon, we predict, the GOP will go the way of the Mastodon– a victim of its inability to adjust to unexpected phenomena like Donald Trump, and its failure to realize the stupidity of brushing off all those pesky neanderthalic tribespeople in flyover country. Something new and better suited to our epoch and our cause will emerge from the bone pile–necessarily a movement less dismissive of conservative and libertarian beliefs; a party free of fossils like Boehner, Ryan, McCain, Graham, and Jeb!–all evolutionary rejects writ large. Conservatism and pro-Constitutionalism will regroup and flourish beneath some more vibrant banner while the Republican Party follows the Whigs, the Know-Nothings, the Anti-Masonic Party, the American Vegetarian Party,and the never-to-be-forgotten Rent is Too Damn High Party, into obscurity.

In fact, years hence, when some intrepid reporter asks Boehner or Graham whether selling out the American Right, tantruming over primary results not to their liking, abdicating their constitutional authority, and consistently misrepresenting their intentions to voters might have contributed to their party’s undoing, we fully expect the interviewee to reply, “Maybe the reason was something completely different, for instance the climate.” WOOF PRINT

annie annie4

KNIFE VIOLENCE: IT’S TIME TO RECOGNIZE THE THREAT! (WOOF calls for common-sense knife laws to control this silent killer in our midst!)

In "April is the cruelest month" forum on April 1, 2016 at 1:25 am

Has America’s romance with the knife gone too far?

Back to Blood

In a scene that seemed borrowed from the pages of a Tom Wolfe novel, the edgy/arty patrons of the ultra-chic Art Basel Miami Beach exhibition at the Miami Beach Convention Center watched in rapt fascination as a woman amongst them was stabbed repeatedly in the neck and arms during the show’s main event. Initially, witnesses uniformly assumed they were being entertained, mistaking the assault for a theatrical enactment. The stabbing occurred adjacent to the collected works of Naomi Fisher and Agatha Wara, two artists whose presentation was collectively entitled “The Swamp of Sagittarius.” Artist Fisher subsequently explained that “A guy walked up to me and said, ‘I thought I saw a performance, and I thought it was fake blood, but it was real blood!’”

Miami stabbing victim suffers for art.

Miami stabbing victim suffers for art.

As it dawned on Fisher the stabbing was not a guerilla theater recital, she exclaimed, “It’s horrible … I’m so freaked out…I feel nauseous.”  But it was no time to quibble over grammar. As local artist Rudy Perez casually snapped cell phone photos of the victim slumping to the floor with bloodstains spreading across her white blouse, security guards hastened to cordon off the scene. Attendees showed no signs of panic, however, since the majority of them misconstrued the newly strung police tape as part of the show. Enthralled by the spectacle, two Coconut Grove women stood at the tape’s edge and sipped champagne until a reporter convinced them that the stabbing was genuine. “It makes me very nervous,” declared onlooker Sune Smith, whose friend, Amanda DeSeta added “It’s a very strange place for something like this to happen.” Gregg Hill, a visiting New York sculptor, agreed. “I never would have thought there would be a stabbing at Art Basel,” he told reporters. “People didn’t really know what had happened. It was calm and everyone was milling around and talking.”

“Inhale, Exhale” by artist Naomi Fisher–who apparently only becomes “freaked out” and “nauseous” when the violence is three dimensional.

The victim was transported to Jackson Memorial Hospital and is expected to make a full recovery. Her assailant was arrested at the scene. Calm has returned to the brie-and-chablis sybarites of Dade County’s art community—but the events of that bloody December 4th remain of the utmost moment, symbolizing as they do an unchecked reign of violence both in America and abroad attributable to a weapon statistically proven to be five times deadlier than the nefarious ‘assault rifle.’ Absolutely silent, concealable, and capable of inflicting an infinite number of wounds without reloading, this historically fabled instrument of death may have flown for decades below the radar of the liberal establishment, but it has not escaped the keen eye of WOOF, and we devote ourselves in this article to exposing it as the societal menace it is. Yes, Woofketeers, we refer here to that most insidious, most commonly employed, widely disseminated and historically favored of all murderous utensils— the knife!

Avoid the jelly!

Fasail Mohammed--just another schoolyard juvenile delinquent.

Fasail Mohammed–just another schoolyard juvenile delinquent.

Faisal Mohammed was a computer science and engineering major at University of California, Merced; but on November 4th he forgot about all that and, with a broad smile on his face according to witnesses, set about stabbing and slashing people in the vicinity of his freshman general education class. Faisal had carved up four victims by the time police arrived on the scene and shot him dead. Wounded were two of Faisal’s fellow students, a university employee, and a construction worker. Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke was the first public official to remind reporters that Mohammed’s actions should in no respect be considered terroristic, pointing out that young Faisal was merely upset with certain persons on campus.

Sheriff Warnke shows obvious relief at the discovery that Mohammed’s attacks were unrelated to terrorism.

Nothing in Mohammad’s history, Warnke assured the press, nor on his computer, nor in his belongings, indicated anything other than “personal motivations” for the attack. Nor did Sheriff Warnke consider the fact that Mohammad’s backpack contained zip-tie handcuffs, petroleum jelly, a night scope, and a hammer to break windows, indicative of anything other “than a teenage boy that got upset with fellow classmates and took it to the extreme.” True, Sheriff Warnke later  confirmed that a printout of the Islamic State (ISIS) flag was prominent among Faisal’s belongings and yes, Faisal also jotted notes to himself reminding himself to, “continually praise Allah,” while knifing his classmates, and yes, he left a manifesto that prominently averted to Allah as well as the author’s desire to behead quite a few people, but investigators insisted there were no indications of any associations with terror. The petroleum jelly, by the way, was to squirt on the floor, causing first responders to slip and fall. In the event, it seems not to have worked, but we knew you were probably wondering.


“Exceptionally rare!”

dylan quick

Dylan Quick fantasized about stabbing people since childhood.

An attack by a knife-wielding student on a college campus near Houston back in 2013 left 14 people wounded – two of them seriously – and might have sufficed to put authorities on alert  regarding the potential dangers of knife ownership in America, but the Liberal Establishment shrugged off the attack in which Dylan Quick, 20, ran the breadth of the Lone Star College’s CyFair campus, slashing fourteen students as he went.  The local  newspaper accurately denounced the knife attack as “yet another brazen daytime assault” but authorities quickly trotted out criminologist Grant Duwe, flown in all the way from the Minnesota Department of Corrections, to explain that such concerns were unwarranted. “Mass stabbings are exceptionally rare,” Duwe told reporters, adding that since 1901 there have only been seven mass stabbings in a public place in the USA where four or more victims were killed. ” Duwe omitted any discussion of knife attacks before 1901, knife attacks wounding less than four people, and knife attacks occurring in other-than-public settings. With a bit of prompting from reporters, however, he recalled that “Mass stabbings usually occur in the home, where the suspect uses a knife on unsuspecting family members.”  (Oh, those! ) James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University, Boston, explained that Mr. Quick’s slashing spree was “unlikely to lead to anything resembling a national debate on knife safety or tighter regulations on their sales,”  because “knives just don’t create that same sense of fear.” Well, gentle readers, WOOF is here to change all that!

Stabbing people often seems to appeal to couples. Andrew and Alecia Schmuhl (above) are charged with a torture-and-stabbing home intrusion in Virginia. Both Schmuhls were arrested following a 4 mile car chase. Andrew was wearing only a diaper. WOOF is not making this up.

Stabbing people often seems to appeal to couples. Andrew and Alecia Schmuhl (above) are charged with a torture-and-stabbing home intrusion in Virginia. Both Schmuhls were arrested following a 4 mile car chase. Andrew was wearing only a diaper.

According to Duwe (rhymes with Bowie– Jim that is, not David), the “first major high-profile mass stabbing” in the USA was the 1989 case of Ramon Salcido, a vineyard worker in California who killed seven people, including his wife and two small daughters, before fleeing to Mexico. Salcido was later extradited and convicted of the murders. Indeed, these slayings constituted a vicious example of knife violence—but Duwe’s assertion that the Salcido case was the first high profile stabbing incident is ridiculous.

swirchblade knifeOne of America’s most notorious mass murderers, Richard Speck, began his criminal career on January 9, 1965, when he assaulted a woman in a parking lot in Alabama, brandishing a 17-inch carving knife and demanding she keep quiet and  yield to him sexually. The lady, being a Texan, chose to struggle and yell instead, so Speck fled and was subsequently arrested and briefly imprisoned.  In 1966 Speck stabbed a man in a barroom brawl but was freed after paying a ten dollar fine for  disturbing the peace. Next, he raped a 65 year old woman at knife point and committed several additional felonies before finding his way to the  townhouse at 2319 E. 100th Street in Chicago where he famously proceeded to kill nursing students Patricia Matusek, Nina Jo Schmale, Pamela Wilkening, Suzanne Farris, Mary Ann Jordan, Merlita Gargullo, and Valentina Pasion, with a switchblade. Suffice it that knife slayings were prominent in the news during the early ’60s.

Orhan Cerimagic and Brittney Mitchell are charged with a stabbing home invasion in a Chicago that authorities say left two people dead on Friday, Sept. 5, 2014. Otherwise, they make a cute enough couple...but we don't think he's good enough for her.

Orhan Cerimagic and Brittney Mitchell are charged with a stabbing home invasion in Chicago that authorities say left two people dead on Friday, Sept. 5, 2014. Otherwise, they make a cute enough couple…but we don’t think he’s good enough for her.

Among many sordid crimes that rounded out that twisted epoch, the whole Charlie Manson imbroglio was a stab-and-slash fest.  True, one assailant brought along a 22-caliber “Buntline Special” and used it here and there to partial effect, but almost everyone murdered during the Tate and LaBianca killings was hacked, slashed or stabbed to death by everything from kitchen knives to a chrome-plated bayonet, contributed by Manson.  For that matter, so-called “serial killers” tend overwhelmingly to prefer  knives over other available weaponry. The sundry murders of young females committed by Edmund Emil Kemper III (who served as the basis for “Buffalo Bill” in Silence of the Lambs); the ritualistic slayings performed by dedicated Satanist Ricardo Leyva Muñoz Ramírez (nicknamed “The Night Stalker” by Los Angeles tabloids in the mid ’80s); and the bloody trail of corpses left by Tommy Lynn Sells, a Texan who may have killed as many as 70 people before his capture in 1999, provide only a minute sample of such crimes–each directly traceable to an abnormal fascination with knives!  

manson family

The “Manson Family” in 1968–apparently they literally crawled out from under a rock.

Serial Butt Stabber remains at large…

Victim of parking lot poker undergoes treatment in Maryland.

Victim of the parking lot poker undergoes treatment in Fairfax, VA.

The sado-sexual fixation many assailants exhibit with regard to penetrating a victim’s flesh by stabbing or cutting is a documented psychological aberration. In his 2002 compilation The  Concise   Dictionary of Crime and Justice, Mark S. Davis refers to this obsession as “piquerism,” which the author defines as a “sexual interest [in] penetrating the skin of another person, sometimes seriously enough to cause death…a paraphilia and a form of sadism.” Often, these tendencies surface in less than homicidal intensity. Over the summer of 2011, numerous shoppers at the mall in Fairfax, Virginia were assaulted by a felon local newscasters dubbed the Serial Butt Stabber. The mystery stabber repeatedly assailed  female shoppers in the mall’s parking lot, jabbing their buttocks through their clothing and then making good his escape.

Piquerism–a looming epidemic?


Or, take the sad case of Frank Ranieri. Long before the mysterious butt slasher of Fairfax Virginia entered the picture, Frank Ranieri was arrested in the Arden Heights section of Staten Island and charged with assault. The police report states that Mr. Ranieri was in the habit of paying women “large amounts of money,” in receipt of which, the ladies agreed to allow Mr. Ranieri to jab their posteriors with “sharp objects.”  In the end (no pun intended) Mr. Ranieri got off with ten years probation.

Dr. Mark Griffiths is Mark D. Griffiths is an English chartered psychologist focusing in the field of behavioural addictions. If he discovers us, he'll probably loaths us, but he has a swell blog--and besides, we love everybody!!

Dr. Mark Griffiths is an English chartered psychologist focusing on the field of behavioural addictions. If he discovers us, he’ll probably loaths us, but he has a swell blog–and besides, we love everybody!!

Let’s move on to Dr. Mark Griffiths who maintains a fascinating website devoted to “addictive, obsessional, compulsive and/or extreme behaviours.” In an article on the subject of piquerism, Dr. Griffiths first notes “the relatively regular incidence of piquerism in the popular media,” and then admits he “was quite surprised to find next to nothing academically” despite the fact that “there are numerous examples of such practices.” He further laments that “There are passing references to piquerism in the clinical and forensic science literature but nothing…on the prevalence or etiology of the disorder.” Well, see, Dr. Griffith? That’s just where we here at WOOF come in handy–alerting the public to what academia won’t acknowledge…take, for example, the article in which we exposed “liberal delirium” as a mental disorder. (The casually or intensely curious may locate our article by clicking here. Those who find most WOOF articles annoyingly turgid may wish to scroll down to the heading “Bury my Heart at U of C ” and save time!)

teen with knifeHappily, Dr. Griffiths finds some solace in the book  Juvenile Sexual Homicide  (2002) by Dr. Wade Myers,  Dr. Myers having devoted an entire section to the topic. Suffice it for our purposes that Myers’s accounts of sado-sexual teenage murder are too appalling for the genteel eyes of our readership, but would prove more than sufficient, if consulted, to establish to any reasonable person’s satisfaction that piquerism often attains a homicidal intensity reflecting  sexual motivation. Those among our gentle readers who are willing to risk being appalled in the name of science may view the entire story on Dr. Griffith’s excellent blog site by clicking here.  Chillingly, after consulting Dr. Richard Walters (Omega Crime Assessment Group, and former prison psychologist for the Michigan Department of Corrections) Dr. Myers concluded that: “The prevalence rate of piquerism is unknown.” Yipes. And this fact alone suggests that it is time we have a national discussion about—knives!  

Do androids dream of electric carving knives?

And this thought necessarily leads us to Sigmund Freud. We know. We are asking a lot of our beloved readers–expecting them to keep up with this screed’s weaponological sardonicism, and simultaneously abide a revisitation of Freud’s largely superannuated hypotheses. But we are interested here only in the Viennese cokie’s theorizations pertinent to knives–or put more subtly, the meaning of phallic symbolism in his writings on the unconscious.  Restricting ourselves (so as not to unduly tax the patience of our beloved readers) to Freud’s theories of dream analysis, we offer this portion from the Shrink Meister’s  A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1920), which we have severely truncated, first in order to maintain pertinence, and second, as a further gesture of considerateness toward our readers:

Am early 20th century hanging lamp. What was Sigmund thinking?

Am early 20th century hanging lamp. What was Sigmund thinking?

“The dream has a number of representations for the male genital that may be called symbolic… the male organ has a symbolical substitute in objects of like form… symbolized by objects that have the characteristic, in common with it, of penetration into the body and consequent injury, hence pointed weapons of every type, knives, daggers, lances, swords… as well as its representation by other objects that have the power of elongation, such as hanging lamps, collapsible pencils, etc.”

Salvador Dali designed the scenery for Gregory Peck’s symbolic dream sequences in Alfred Hitchcock’s 1945 “Spellbound,” a thriller immersed in psychiatric theory that otherwise makes only slightly more sense than most of what Freud wrote.

Salvador Dali designed the scenery for the symbolic dream sequences in Alfred Hitchcock’s 1945 “Spellbound,” a thriller immersed in psychiatric theory that otherwise makes only slightly more sense than most of what Freud wrote.

Thus spake Freud. The overly punctilious may complain that we are leaving hanging lamps and collapsible pencils out of our discussion, but one can search the available records extensively and find no data indicating that either of these devices has been employed to commit murder, or to advance anyone’s fetishistic obsession with bodily penetration in such a way as to constitute a menace to the public. Similarly, we omitted Freud’s lengthy analysis of zeppelins, which have it in common with lances and swords that they are rarely problematic nowadays. But we are certain that the larger portion of our readership already knew most of this stuff, so, many among you may be wondering, what are we up to here? Let us speak frankly on that point (no pun intended):

By the way, Freud thought water emitting devices such as showers were all male symbols, so Janet Leigh was sort of double-maled in

By the way, Freud thought water emitting devices such as showers were male symbols, so Janet Leigh was sort of double-maled in “Psycho.”

Freud is derided nowhere more enthusiastically than in the archives of WOOF, but we maintain that the phallic implications of penetrative weaponry are among the few clearly reasonable interpretations offered in his theories. Thus, we ought not to discard the baby with the bathwater as we dismiss the questionable, highly unlikely, and patently ludicrous components of Freudian teachings. Or, to offer a Chestertonian inversion of our own devising, “Sometimes a cigar is absolutely not  a cigar.”  But knowing that knife violence is almost certainly a physical expression of humankind’s hellbroth of unconscious impulses and repressions is only to say that a deep, ungovernable, and trans-cultural fixation on the sexual symbolism of knives must be acknowledged as a driving factor in the ever-increasing incidence of stabbings and slashings.  Also, even more forebodingly, the realization that knives represent an all-too-frequently irrepressible expression of man’s most deeply concealed urges underscores the need to wipe out knives altogether as the only means of rescuing our civilization.

And all this having been said, we have addressed only the psychoanalytic explanation of knife violence.  A more complete understanding of the problem requires us to examine the more obvious inducements provoking wave after wave of these attacks.  Sadly, this will oblige us to (briefly) avert to behavioral psychology, which contains all the theoretic excessiveness of psychoanalysis and none of the charm.

Could a Bobo doll stand up to Anthony Perkins?

tony perkinsIf you paid attention the time you had to take that Intro to Psych class, you will recall the world-famous Bobo doll experiment. It made a behavioral-psychology superstar out of Albert Bandura and proved  that even the simplest and most  predictable result can pass for revelation if documented in the proper patois. Here is the basic idea: the experiment began with a Bobo doll placed in a room–Bobo dolls being those inflatable punching bags that are weighted at the bottom so that no matter how often they are punched or shoved they always return to the upright position.  For reasons that remain obscure, they usually bear the image of a clown. Anyway, the Bobo toy was in placed in a room and then 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University nursery school were hauled in. One by one they were placed in a the room and given some toys to play with; but they were warned that the Bobo doll was only for grownups. In half the cases, an adult entered the room and by pre-calculated degrees began to show more and more aggression toward the doll, hitting it with his fists, bashing it with a mallet, slapping it, sitting on it, and all the while verbally abusing it.  But in the second group, the other half of the kids were placed one-by-one in the same room, the difference being that the attending Bobo Doll was spared any indignities since the adult was instructed to refrain from any aggressive actions or utterances.

A Bobo Doll

A Bobo Doll

In case you aren’t already way ahead of us, the results showed that children exposed to the aggressive adult models were far more likely to act out violently than those who were not.  Put less decorously, the children in the first group, once isolated with Bobo Dolls of their own, proceeded to beat the holy bejesus out of them at rates in considerable excess of children in the second, non-violent group. In fact, the children who not did observe an adult modelling violence or hurling obloquy at a Bobo Doll treated their own dolls humanely by an overwhelming majority.  Are you surprised, gentle readers?  Of course not–anyone with a functioning brain could have predicted Bandura’s findings, so why did he bother?  He had two unspoken motives. First, he wished to scientifically verify that observing violent actions induced children to behave violently because doing so would make his research irresistibly topical. It was 1961, and concerns were ballooning that violent television programs might be creating armies of little hoodlums all over America. Obviously, Bandura’s findings no longer exercise any restraint whatsoever on televised violence, the current levels of which  make laughable the concerns of parents, pastors, and politicians who, in the dawning ’60s, worried that kids might go psycho watching  Gunsmoke, or  Bonanza. But Bandura is useful to our current purpose, since his findings lend scientific credence to the argument that knife violence is partly promoted by depictions of such violence in media, and has been for quite some time.

batman talks bobo dollThe second unspoken motive we confidently attribute to Bandura was his desire to make a splash in the field of behavioral psychology by establishing his theory of “social learning.” This theory, that people learn through observing and imitating modeled behaviors, may again strike readers as so dumbfoundingly obvious that even the dimmest percipient could have confirmed it without involving a single Bobo Doll or nursery-school pupil.  But pause here to consider that the entire behavioral school of psychology was in that day dominated by the preternaturally unimaginative B. F. Skinner (you know, the guy who conditioned pigeons to play ping pong). Bandura’s study and theory of social learning demonstrated that Skinner’s hypothesis–that all human and animal behavior results from reinforcement or punishment and nothing else–was actually kind of moronic. And this achievement alone justifies the Bobo doll experiments in our view! But the next obvious question related to our current discussion remains unresolved–namely,  how do these seemingly disparate theories combine to explain the raging epidemic of knife attacks in our own time?  But wait, there’s more!

gang debsWhat is the real cause of knife violence?  We owe it in fairness to the pundits of the Left to factor in the liberal belief in “the instrumentality effect hypothesis.” That is, the notion that the mere presence of the object somehow induces an adjacent person to employ it violently.  On the Left this has long meant that even if one concedes–however briefly and purely for the sake of argument– that people occasionally kill people, the onus is otherwise instantly transferred to the weapon itself.  It is canonical in liberal lore, therefore, that guns somehow encourage otherwise placid individuals to pick them up and shoot people. So in the name of socio-scientific consistency, we must conclude that knives, too, somehow seduce vast numbers of otherwise normal Americans to perpetrate mayhem. It seems we’ve only to pick them up, say, to peel an onion or  fillet a mackerel, and all too often the unintended result is an otherwise inexplicable surge of psychopathic homicidality.  Thus, in applying the liberal template to our quest for knife control,  it seems incumbent on us to acknowledge forthrightly that the cause of knife violence is quite possibly knives. That said….

Ouch! West Side Story made knife violence high-brow--after all, they danced in between stabbings.

Ouch! “West Side Story” made knife violence high-brow–after all, they danced to Stephen Sondheim arrangements between stabbings.

No matter how ardently one subscribes to the instrumentality effect hypothesis, certain societal trends must be taken into consideration as well.  From a “social learning” perspective, numerous cultural factors appear to stimulate knife violence nowadays quite apart from the simplistic supposition that mere availability impels otherwise  average citizens to snatch up a blade and succumb to homicidal mania. Thus, the influence of pop culture would seem an obvious component of our national proneness to piquerism, and this influence is supported by Bandura’s experiment. The knife as an instrument of salaciously vicious bloodletting has long been the stuff of tawdry paperbacks, sleazy comic books, and innumerable films over the decades. While the “classic” West Side Story romanticized teenage violence for generations to come, Rebel Without a Cause conjoined the switchblade in the popular psyche with the magnetic screen persona of James Dean. Countless films from the ’50s to our present time sensationalize the knife as an expression of post-adolescent rebellion.

James Dean's knife fight in

James Dean’s knife fight in “Rebel Without a Cause” happens at the Griffith Observatory–symbolizing that we cannot escape what our stars ordain, or maybe that the universe will end “at dawn”–or–something really meaningful along those lines…

The imagery of nihilistic youths clicking their switchblades open to initiate violent confrontations is enshrined in films such as Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (the book was better), Walter Hill’s The Warriors, (Last Man Standing was better) Glenn Ford in 1955’s seminal Blackboard Jungle (which recurrently touched off riots among teenagers in the audience) and even Burt Lancaster (sporting a crew cut!)  in The Young Savages. These relatively polished efforts did not differ in their depictions of the knife as an instrument of empowerment from countless low-budget teen-sploitation mellers like  Naked YouthKey WitnessHigh School Confidential, Juvenile Jungle and the never-to-be-forgotten Switchblade Sisters.

Into our living rooms!

children and TVEven as the movies manufactured lurid tales of switchblade duels and rumbling teenage gangs, the TV screen began to offer Americans a variety of knife-related entertainments. The most relentless barrage, ironically, came from the highly successful Christian programming of the mid ’50s and early ’60s. Yes, Christian. Few today remember This is the Life, a show so ancient it actually began its first season on the now-long-defunct Dumont Network. The idea was a simple one: every week some character or characters who resided in the fictional city of Middleburg would get into a deeply disturbing personal dilemma, usually ethical, criminal, marital, or grief-related.  Things would look pretty hopeless, but in the nick of time the kindly, and uncannily sagacious Pastor Martin (Lutheran church, Missouri Synod) would appear and put folks back on the track for spiritual deliverance. The show’s willingness to deal with controversial subjects of that era was often applauded as courageous.

“Don’t do anything rash, now, son! Whata-ya-say I give Pastor Martin a call?”

But the issue This is the Life seemed to deal with more often than any other was juvenile delinquency, and that usually came with switchblades!  In fact you could reasonably anticipate a televised  dose of knife-brandishing delinquency courtesy of the Lutheran church just about any Sunday morning before the indefatigable Pastor Martin stepped in to lead everyone to God.  And if that didn’t pay off,  you could check out the show’s various imitators. Yes, other churches took note of the recruiting power of the Lutherans’ popular TV series and began shooting their own versions. The Southern Baptist Convention hit the airwaves with This Is the Answer (1958-1961), while Insight drew on the Catholic perspective. Frontiers of Faith and The Eternal Light soon appeared on NBC and the ecumenical anthology Crossroads often included Hollywood personalities in stories drawn from the putatively true-life experiences of priests, ministers, and rabbis. Naturally each of these programs took note of the ratings boost teenagers in leather jackets commonly produced, so if you couldn’t find knife crazy delinquents on one program, you could reasonably expect them to pop up on one or more of its competitors.

Scott Forbes played JIm Bowie with verve and wit--but the real star was that great big knife!

Scott Forbes played JIm Bowie with verve and wit–but the real star was that great big knife!

Besides the Christian onslaught, there were shows like The Adventures of Jim Bowie and Northwest Passage that made knives a central theme every week…as well as a variety of detective and police dramas that often dealt with nefarious stabbers and slashers. Today, of course, the carnography on television is hyperbolized to an extent that would affright Sam Peckinpah, galvanizing our latent national piquerism and interacting symbiotically with “the instrumentality effect hypothesis.” The obvious result is our climbing rate of knife violence–and  TV is only getting worse.

In NBC's

In NBC’s “Northwest Passage” Keith Larson even pointed at maps with his knife–he just couldn’t keep his hands off the thing!

Reaping a harvest of Karo Syrup and RFD 40.

We have already established that television violence in the time of the Bobo experiments was almost genteel by comparison to the contemporary product. Today, knife attacks are fake blooddepicted much more extravagantly and in lingering, almost fetishistic detail.  Owing to the modern ubiquity of  color TV (we hear they even have it in Russia now) the current exploiters of our national obsession with slash-and-stab entertainments are able to fill our screens with riveting spurts of carefully contrived scarlet. Today’s network, cable, and dish dramas spray the camera lens with color-conscious concoctions–usually variations on Sam Peckinpah’s Karo Syrup and red food dye recipes. All of these advances, sadly, must be viewed also as a national exposure to Bandura-style”social learning” courtesy of an industry that constantly floods our living rooms with one big, never-ending Bobo-doll experiment.

...Remaining scrupulously devoid of any redeeming social value...

…Remaining scrupulously devoid of any redeeming social value…

We realize that many of our readers do not watch much television and may therefore hike an eyebrow at our assertion that the situation has reached paraphilic proportions. We pause, therefore, to offer a few prime examples, and prime examples must suffice since a complete catalog of similar programs would quickly swell to encyclopedic proportions. For starters, unless we’ve missed something worse, the most unabashedly brutal program devoted to little other than massive displays of slashing and stabbing while remaining scrupulously devoid of any redeeming social value is the recently cancelled but unforgettably nauseous The Following.  To add more gore to this show than Fox’s Standards-and- Practices committee would ordinarily approve, Executive Producer Kevin Williamson boasted he used “certain tricks” to outfox Fox, and they must have been good ones, because the show’s violent ends seemed endless, supplying enough Karo Syrup and food dye to distract viewers from the absurdity of the story line and the absence of anything resembling character development or engaging dialogue. Permit us, gentle readers, to belabor the example of The Following despite it’s removal from Fox’s schedule, not because it deserves commemoration, but rather because it typifies the kind of “social learning” to which national audiences are more and more subjected.

Emma Hill (Valorie Curry) comes in second in a knife fight.

Emma Hill (Valorie Curry) comes in second in a knife fight.

Perhaps character development was deemed pointless (no pun intended) since almost nobody goes more than a few episodes before getting slaughtered.Actually, the show’s most nuanced (though conformingly psychopathic) character, Emma (Valorie Curry), lasted two seasons before being knifed to death in a knife fight with Claire (Natalie Zea), who was knifed to death in the first season but returned (don’t ask!) to out-knife Emma in the second.  For most of those seasons the driving plot line consisted of Kevin Bacon, an alcoholic agent recalled to FBI duty because he is the only person capable of tracking down the diabolical serial killer Joe Carroll (James Purefoy), chasing his nemesis.  But Bacon can’t catch him either, largely because like almost all protagonists of his ilk he never remembers to call for back up, and when he does his reinforcements always get there too late, or get there on time only to be duped by the killer’s brilliant machinations.

following promo

Purefoy and Bacon, both obviously immersed in their characters!!

Besides the fact that Purefoy as Carroll isn’t interesting enough for the role, the character of Carroll isn’t interesting enough either, Carroll being a failed writer and a college lit professor whose obsession is Edgar Allen Poe. Really? Would the Marquis de Sade be too highbrow? Baudelaire?  Anyway, to distract us from these deficiencies, producer Williamson has Joe kill a bunch of people, and also asks us to believe that while in prison, via the Internet, Joe established an army of fanatical supporters–an army, seemingly, at least the size of China’s. Members of this underground force are perfectly okay with undertaking suicidal missions of mass mayhem on cue; hence the series title, and a great excuse for having almost any background character or passerby suddenly pull an ice pick or a butcher’s knife and pounce on some blood-squirting cast member about whom we might care a bit had he or she ever been presented as more dimensional than a cardboard cutout (no pun intended).


Members of serial killer Joe Carroll’s army of brainwashed psychos even stab themselves in the eyes when short of options.. (Warning: You may contemplate doing likewise if you attempt to binge watch “The Following,”)

criminal mindsA similar, though far more skillfully crafted killer-of-the-week program is Criminal Minds, on CBS.  Our heros are members of an FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) devoted to psychologically profiling criminals, almost always blade-crazy serial killers.  The  series follows a personality-rich group of profilers as they set about catching various criminals by psychologically profiling them with mind-boggling proficiency. Despite the fact that none of the lead characters has a degree in psychology, (except the boyish Dr. Reid, resident genius, who holds three PhDs, but only a BA in psychology), the team never misses, solving one case every week and usually killing the evil doer(s) just in time to fly home to Quantico in their private jet while one of them overdubs a profound quote from somebody or other, usually at least vaguely pertinent to the hour’s events.

Taking time to flesh out its characters and infuse small doses of psychiatric and philosophical wisdom has made the show’s graphic immersions in blood, guts, skinnings, dismemberments, beheadings, disembowelings, and exsanguinations seem socially justified, or so the audience seems to feel– Criminal Minds is well into its 12th season.

lizzie with knife

Lifetime’s  Lizzie can barely stop stabbing people long enough to catch her breath.

Not to be outdone, the Lifetime channel opted to reboot the legend of Lizzie Borden–a legend that required a positively surreal amount of embellishment before it could serve as the basis for a weekly television drama. Armchair criminologists will recall that Miss Borden’s family occupied a relatively upscale residence in the pastoral township of Fall River–a sleepy Massachusetts hamlet where nothing out of the ordinary ever happened–until Lizzie’s father and mother were found brutally axe murdered in their home. Lizzie was arrested and tried for the murders, but acquitted. The only additional crime of which she was ever accused was shoplifting, and those charges were dropped without the issuance of a warrant. These facts notwithstanding, Lifetime’s series portrays the reclusive spinstress as a female Hannibal Lector, except that she doesn’t eat anybody. Perhaps by way of sublimating this omission, Lizzie slashes, hacks, and stabs people to death at a rate Hannibal would frown upon as distastefully wanton. Despite the program’s devotion to serving up scene upon scene of blade thrusting, hatchet hewing, blood spurting slaughter, viewers seemed to prefer their mayhem in that time slot on the contemporary side (Revenge on USA), or zombified (The Waking Dead on AMC), or dissembled as haute cuisine (Cut Throat Kitchen on the Food Channel). Lifetime cancelled Chronicles after one season, citing low ratings as the determining factor and giving dozens of hack reviewers (no pun intended) the opportunity to observe that Lizzie got the axe.

lizzie with axe

We haven’t room here, of course, to discuss every TV program currently contributing to America’s rising tide of piquerism.  It would seem negligent, however, to omit certain exemplary titles from our discussion. Consider the recently cancelled Dexter, featuring a lovably picaresque serial killer who, for eight full seasons, only chopped up bad guys, so nobody was too bothered by it. Wives with Knives brought us three seasons of true stories, each featuring wives who used knives on their husbands. Fargo, The Sons of AnarchyThe Walking Dead, American Horror Story, Vikings, Stalker, Game of Thrones–all deserve mention.

“Wives with Knives”

A problem of international magnitude!

Looks like this Israeli picked the wrong day to leave his Uzi at home.

America is not alone in its seeming insouciance to the threat posed by unregulated knife possession. Many of the countries that most comprehensively restrict gun ownership exhibit the highest rates of violent crime, particularly stabbings. Great Britain has long been lax in its efforts to control knives.  In May of 2013 two Muslims hacked a British soldier to death in east London. The assailants had time to tell stunned onlookers “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,” before police arrived and shot them. Terror-related knife violence surfaced again in east London this December 5th when a blade wielding man yelling “This is for Syria!” and “All of your blood will be spilled!” slashed the throat of a hapless commuter in the Leytonstone tube station, and was about to wade into a cluster of cowering women and children when he was tackled and subdued by angry commuters.

Better life? Surrender your knife!

concerned ladies

Can the U..S. afford to let England and Europe take the lead in promoting knife-violence awareness?

Britain, however, has lately taken a convincing lead in controlling the situation! Enlightened organizations now wage private advocacy campaigns to eliminate the threat of knives in the United Kingdom. The visionary members of “Save A Life, Surrender Your Knife” are even placing knife-collection bins throughout the UK so that conscientious English citizens can anonymously divest themselves of any potentially lethal cutlery.  The Scotland-based national initiative “No Knives/Better Lives” maintains a substantial web presence advocating the elimination of bladed weaponry across Great Britain, with major youth programs driven by catchy slogans like “Choose life, not a knife!” and “Remember, there is no safe place to stab someone!”  Why can’t America get on board with some equally inventive policies?

kitchen imagesAnd let’s set aside the myth that “tactical” or Assault Knives are the only kind used in the commission of crime—far from it! In 2005, the BBC reported a study by the British Medical Journal including a statistical analysis proving that  kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings committed in the UK. Apparently, a shocking number of homicides occur in British kitchens owing, perhaps, to the widespread use of alcohol while cooking is underway. The resultant diminishment of self control and rise in impulsivity lead to a startling number of slayings linked to meal preparation because, as the BBC so starkly observed, “a kitchen knife often makes an all-too-available weapon.”  A team from West Middlesex University Hospital notes violent crime is on the increase in Britain – and kitchen knives are used in half of all recorded stabbings!

Of course certain chefs like Eric Ripert (depicted) will flout these common-sense efforts at publis saftey--but can't they be charged under the RICO act or something?

Of course certain chefs like Eric Ripert (depicted) may flout these common-sense efforts to promote public safety–but maybe they can be charged under the RICO statutes.

Arguments that knives are necessary for cooking have been dismissed by experts. The BBC consulted ten top chefs from around the UK, and  learned that “pointy” knives “have little practical  value in the kitchen.” None of the chefs consulted by the BBC thought that knives were particularly necessary to their craft, and all agreed that big pointy knives were utterly uncalled for “since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.” True, researchers found that even stubby knives can cause “a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault” but remained unlikely to “penetrate inner organs.” By comparison, a pointy kitchen blade pierces the body like “cutting into a ripe melon.” Thus researchers want to impose bans on pointy knives to curb the waves of culinary violence in England and Scotland.  Indeed, consider all those fabulously popular cook-off shows that are everywhere nowadays–those seemingly innocent culinary entertainments that are cast more and more as gang rivalries with huge, flashing knives chopping, slicing, and dicing in nearly every scene!  No matter how innocently intended, these shows too must be viewed as part of the problem–sending Bobo-style  messages spreading waves of of piquerism among countless unwitting gourmandes and  other unwitting viewers.

Seemingly innocent? Think again, America!

Just harmless kitchen fun?  Mais non! Think again, America!

Ironically, Red China remains oblivious of the threat posed by unregulated knife ownership even as it spares no effort cracking down on free-enterprise ventures such as this privately owned and operated gun factory in Shanghai!

Ironically, Red China remains oblivious of the threat posed by unregulated knife ownership even as it spares no effort cracking down on free-enterprise ventures such as this privately owned and operated gun factory in Shanghai!

Red Chinese police destroyed 113 illegal gun factories and shops during a three-month crackdown in 2006. Police seized 117,000 guns, but the Communist government has been slow to address the elephant in the room, namely that outbreaks of knife violence occur in China with an almost uncanny regularity. Despite the horrifying nature of these mass slayings, Chinese authorities have proved slow to seize knives from the citizenry, and slow to criminalize their possession! Stranger still, the ruling communist oligarchy actively encourages mainland youth, both male and female, to learn knife fighting. Because of this it is no exaggeration to report that knife attacks constitute a problem of near-epidemic proportions in Communist China. To list these assaults and review them in detail would require more space than can be spared here, but a couple of examples may suffice to underscore the situation’s gravity. Back in 2014, the Chinese city of Kunming in the Yunnan province came under attack by eight screaming men and women, all armed with knives. The killers focused their efforts on commuters milling about the railway station at 9:20 am. Before the police arrived and “neutralized” them, the attackers managed to slash and stab 143 civilians, 33 of whom died.

According to a Red Chinese news source The People's Daily, Chinese high school girls shout “'kill, stab, slash and jab” as they learn knife fighting, which is part of their standard curriculum. Clearly, China’s paraphilic obsession with knives has spread far beyond the criminal element!

According to a Red Chinese news source The People’s Daily, Chinese high school girls shout “’kill, stab, slash and jab” as they learn knife fighting, which is part of their standard curriculum. Clearly, China’s paraphilic obsession with knives has spread far beyond the criminal element!

China is plagued by the problem of unprovoked, seemingly motiveless attacks on its population, most often carried out by seemingly deranged citizens brandishing knifes or meat cleavers. Recently, a September 2015 attack by nine assailants left 50 workers dead at a Chinese coal operation in Aksu, Xinjiang, China. After carving up the government security guards, the assailants swarmed into off-duty bunkhouses filled with sleeping coal miners, and mercilessly stabbed and slashed them. Besides the fifty dead, an additional fifty were left horribly wounded. The killers escaped into the mountains and ravines surrounding the camp site and remain at large.

The ideal solution


A nation that invented the “spork” can certainly be relied upon to create new, 21st century kitchen implements able to apportion a pizza or sunder a juicy steak without the potential to disembowel, slash, stab, or amputate built into our current dinnerware.

Obviously, the surest way to end this floodtide of knife violence in our own country is to ban all knives. There is a general misconception on the part of the public that only certain knives are used in attacks on humans, but as we have clearly demonstrated, this is far from the case.  Ideally, therefore, we should strive to eliminate all knives from production, purchase, or private ownership. To compensate for this absence in the kitchen and at the table, American ingenuity can be relied upon to produce a solution that satisfies legitimate cutting needs without providing death-dealing instrumentation to the ever-increasing swarms of piquerists and other varieties of stabbers and slashers in our midst! After all, the same free-enterprise system that gave us the “spork,” can presumably deliver the “spife,” or the “nork,” or the “fornifoon”, or some equally viable means of circumventing knife ownership while providing options for chefs and diners who find it occasionally necessary to sever a food item! Meanwhile a massive public information program would be required to create public awareness–and to launch knife buy-back programs on a national scale.

knives compilation

All knives can be put to lethal use–including each of these deadly but widely distributed models. From left to right top: Military knife; special forces “assault” knife; “Bowie” knife, knife commonly distributed to militarized youth groups. Lower left to right: “chef’s” special; standard “butter” knife, painter’s utility knife; so-called butterfly knife; and rubber knife–which often serves to lure children into full blown piquerism! All these models and many more are proven to be completely unnecessary to civilized living and should be banned from manufacture and private ownership!

The grim reality…

Confiscation could result in a lucrative knife smuggling epidemic.

Confiscation could result in a lucrative knife smuggling epidemic.

But let’s face the facts, gentle readers, it would prove impossible to confiscate every knife owned by every citizen of the United States, besides which, of course, some families maintain hunting and fishing traditions that may legitimately be argued to require some degree of knife usage. Add to this the grim reality that knife smuggling from Canada and across the wide open Mexican border would soon foster mammoth black-market enterprises likely to exacerbate the situation–even as knife registration would end in a morass of paperwork impacting overextended government knife registrars while providing no sure means of authenticating who had genuinely given up every knife, and who might be secreting knives within the home or burying them in the rose garden.  Sadly, confiscation, while it might work in England, or  possibly even Canada, must be set aside as utterly impracticable in America. So what is to be done?

Figures don’t lie!f5860e35dd3a76303af33c639c0e3cdd

Let’s re-examine the record, straight from the data banks of the FBI, shall we?  According to the Bureau, knives or other cutting instruments were used to kill 1,490 victims in the United States in 2013 whereas rifles (including what Liberals like to call ‘assault rifles’) were associated with only 285 murders. More recent statistics from 2014 reveal that 1,567 people were murdered with knives in the United States, versus a mere 248 murders committed with any sort of rifle, assault-type or otherwise.  Gentle readers, a grotesque trend is obvious! If we cannot eradicate knives from our culture, we owe it to ourselves and our communities to obtain protection for our families and our fellow citizens. Clearly, to paraphrase NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, the surest way to stop a bad guy with a knife, is a good guy with an assault rifle! Here are some suggestions on how to ready yourselves, supplied by WOOF’s very own “Guns and Whamo” editor, Bang Gunley (not his real name).  Even if you have never considered owning an “assault rifle” before, we beg you to reconsider before you and your loved ones are mercilessly hacked to pieces by some psychopath transmuting his unbearable levels of sexual dysmorphia into a homicidal rampage and clutching a big, sharp, knife!  Right now, as we polemicize, New York City is experiencing a 20 percent increase in stabbings and police say they cannot explain the sudden upswing and aren’t certain how to combat it. As of March 13th of this year, police records disclosed 809 such incidents in the Big Apple, compared to 673 a year ago.


Don’t be caught unprepared! –byline: Bang Gunley)

This segement courtesy of WOOF's firearms editor and technical adviser, Bang Gunley (not his real name). Mr. Gunley's face is intentionally not shown as his various services to American clandestined and security personnel make him a target for evil doers should his identity become known.

This segment courtesy of WOOF’s firearms editor, Bang Gunley (not his real name). As always Mr. Gunley’s face is intentionally not shown as his various services to American clandestined and security personnel make him a target for evil doers should his identity become known.

As should be evident from everything that’s been said above, knife wielding felons are a major and ever-increasing problem in 21st Century America–and anyone who can understand simple math must be persuaded by this point that a far safer possession than a knife, yet a possession that has the fire power and the magazine capacity to defeat any aggressor armed with a knife, is the good old American assault rifle. Awhile back, we of the Guns-and-Whamo division of WOOF proved that assault rifles aren’t readily available in our country–sad to say–even though liberals think they see them everywhere. But the tried and true guns available in all rational states of the Union–the kind that liberals call assault rifles–and others that while less criticized by Senator Feinstein can be just as useful–are more than enough to protect ourselves from all those blade-crazy assailants the FBI tells us are out there! So to obtain protection that the government’s own research has proven to be comparatively safe, yet more than sufficient to deter maniacs with anything from letter openers to machetes, let’s check out some options!

Sir Winston Churchill didn't let bad press keep him from proudly displaying his own drum-fed Thompson from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill didn’t let bad press keep him from proudly displaying his own drum-fed Thompson from time to time.

Many contemporary semiautomatic firearms have seeped into the public’s consciousness because of sensationalized news coverage of crimes involving them (or allegedly involving them) and may therefore seem tainted by association. You’ve probably heard of the Bushmaster, for instance. (I recommend their 16″ A2 Heavy Carbine.) Concerned about the weapon’s image? Remember, no gun was more associated with massive criminality than the Thompson submachine gun during the “roaring ’20’s.”  Every gangster movie showed Thompsons blasting from automobile windows, obliterating storefronts, or mowing down rows of screaming, writhing thugs in portrayals of the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre. Even movies about Bonnie and Clyde routinely showed the outlaw couple brandishing twin tommy guns despite the fact that the Barrow Gang didn’t use them. Clyde preferred a sawed-down Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and made one for Bonnie too, who became highly proficient with it.

Yet despite its reputation as a gangster gun–the infamous “Chicago typewriter,” favored by Capone’s mob, Pretty Boy Floyd, Dillinger and Machine Gun Kelly, the Thompson served admirably in World War II and Korea and won universal respect as the close-quarters firearm of choice for several decades. By the same token, the classic silhouette of the all-American AR-style rifle or carbine should bestir a sense of pride and independence in the hearts of patriots despite progressive efforts to tear these extraordinary firearms from our grasp and smear them at every opportunity!

And when it comes to keeping the American spirit alive, hopeless romantics may prefer to own a classic Colt product, and there are plenty available.  (I recommend the Match Target HBAR model for lovers of the rampant pony!) Most contemporary “assault rifles” of this type come chambered for readily obtainable .223 ammo, and besides the noble Colt and infamous Bushmaster, Les Baer, Mossberg, Del-Ton, Windham, and Smith and Wesson all offer excellent guns of this type!


Despite its association in the public mind with violent crime, the Bushmaster is a first rate performer as a self-defense tool, and makes a dandy door prize too!

Looking for a little more punch in case of especially burly psychopaths? Try the new, improved AR-10 from Armalite, the folks who started it all! Bored for the powerful .308 Winchester cartridge, this beauty combines updated striking power with all the traditional charm of the classic M-16! Prefer something in designer camouflage from a legendary maker of sporting guns? Why not snag a Remington R-15 Predator carbine in .223 caliber or in optional  .204 Ruger? Both versions sport a magnificent coat of spritely MAX-1 HD camouflage that will have you exclaiming, “Out of sight!” And by the way, most manufacturers now offer a variety of pink and other exotic DuraCoat finishes sure to win favor with the ladies.  You say you prefer a shorter, more maneuverable gun but crave the classic look of the M-16?  The AR-15 carbine was the personification of these features in Vietnam, except it almost always jammed and suffered other inbuilt deficiencies. Fear not, however, because the good folks at Armalite now offer the new improved M15 Carbine series– the spitting image of the original with none of the bugs!

Yes, some ingenious entrepreneur has even created the

Yes, some ingenious entrepreneur has even created the “Hello Kitty” AR-15.

Those seeking a Cadillac AR experience will find Sabre Defence provides its classy new M4 Tactical model ready to accessorize with optic sights, but with  with flip-up iron sights for those who prefer them. This model also boasts a free-floated quad-rail fore-end, the CTR collapsible buttstock, and an Ergo pistol grip. And for the lady of the house, I recommend the optional Tactical Gill Brake, which cuts way back on unseemly recoil! How can you resist?

21 foot rule

even the loudest proponents of the “21 foot rule” would rather be holding a .357 than a knife if things got real!

But no matter what firearm you choose, you will be arming yourself and your family with peace of mind, knowing that despite all the baloney on the Internet, nobody really wants to bring a knife to a gunfight– and unlike the helpless masses of Europe and the British Isles, you have a second amendment that allows you to take the  necessary steps to thwart any slicing, slashing head cases that lurch your way!  We hope the government soon awakens to the need to provide poorer Americans, or those who are retired and living on fixed incomes, with free or partially subsidized AR-15 style weapons. Surviving knife violence shouldn’t depend on your income. Not in America. But in the meantime, see your local gun shop owner for advice on obtaining protection with a weapon that is not only five times less dangerous than a knife by the FBI’s own admission, but also part of what America is all about:  guns! WOOF PRINT 


Fear and Loathing ain’t Beanbag! (or) Beware the Idiots of March!

In "The World Turned Upside Down" forum on March 28, 2016 at 9:53 pm

im with stupid

“May you live in interesting times!”–Ancient Chinese curse, probably apocryphal, definitely  germane.

They were candidates once, and young…

Politics ain’t beanbag,” Richard Nixon famously remarked, and indeed, the elective process in these United States has never been clean, courteous, or open minded. Every era of our history may be argued to exhibit copious amounts of political tom-foolery mixed with downright underhandedness–and yet, the primary season of 2016, for reasons both grand and picayune, stands apart from any similar  contest in recent memory.

alfredWho are we calling idiots? Well, not everyone in the game–but even the most awe smitten observer of the Republican pack–or ardent admirer of the Democratic duelists–will admit, if candid, that idiocy is rife amongst the ranks– even if we might not agree on specific idiots. But it would be pusillanimous of us to avoid naming any of them, and since it is always safest to slander the dead, as Clifford Irving observed, we begin by examining the bloated carcasses of those formerly beamish valiants now strewn along the bloody trail. To the left we will espy the remains of Lawrence Lessig. Professor Lessig cannot be an idiot because he teaches law at the Harvard Law School  But on the other hand, he was foolish enough to run for president (as a Democrat, of course) and it is only due to his manifest and complete irrelevancy that we spare him closer scrutiny.

chafeeAnd there’s what remains of Lincoln Chafee, whose rugged independence always made him indistinguishable from a Democrat, and who in fact became a Democrat after obtaining Rhode Island’s Governorship. Following a lachrymose term during which his chief accomplishment was renaming the Christmas Tree in front of the State House a “Holiday Tree,” Lincoln’s popularity declined precipitously. He was realistic enough to forget running for a second Gubernatorial term, but oddly deludable concerning the presidency.  He announced his candidacy on June 3rd, 2016, and withdrew on October 23rd following an embarrassing debate performance, a plunge in contributions, and research confirming widespread disinterest in his existence.  We suspect Lincoln (now in semi retirement as  a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies) is probably an idiot.

imagesAnd there’s Jim Webb! Webb, a retired Marine and recipient of the Navy Cross, served as Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and built the 600-hull fleet. He switched to writing novels, received an Emmy for newscasting, taught literature at Annapolis, made a few films, and became a fellow of the Harvard Institute of Politics. We suspect that’s where Jim broke bad and became a Democrat. This might suggest that Jim is an idiot, but we assure he isn’t. As a Virginia Democrat he ran for the senate and won. His senate tenure was unorthodox, like so much of his earthly sojourn. In fact, we believe Jim’s natural contumacy rather than any political instinct led him to run for president, but he dropped out on October 20, 2015.  Webb seemed astonished by the diligence with which the liberal media set about ignoring him. He shouldn’t have been. His flamboyant-but-straight-shooting style threatened to resurrect the dreaded “blue dogs,” and nobody at the DNC wanted that–especially after Reid and Pelosi worked so hard exterminating the species while imposing Obamacare on the rest of us. Webb also threatened Hillary’s right flank– so he received zero coverage until he withdrew. He now insists he will not vote for Hillary, but might consider Trump.  Webb’s not an idiot; just a rugged individualist who all too often leads with his adrenaline gland…a principle that often works better in combat than in politics.  


“And here’s a little something I wrote while I was crippling the oyster industry…”

The next carcass is Martin O’Malley’s. As mayor, Martin so enthusiastically oversaw Baltimore’s municipal deterioration that waves of appreciative Marylanders clamored to make him governor.   As governor, O’Malley excelled at wearing cut off t-shirts, posing with his guitar for photographers, and boasting about job creation. But O’Malley was actually disastrous for Maryland’s job market despite extravagant bestowals of Obama dollars on O’Malley’s blue state.  He “created” only 5,000 jobs during 96 months in office (and that’s assuming he created those jobs)  According to Forbes, O’Malley was dead last for jobs creation behind “any other current or former gubernatorial presidential contender in the field.” But let’s be fair  Two-thousand of the aforementioned jobs may well have been created…by Washington. Federal bribery resulted in large segments of the state’s industry shifting to the manufacture of “green” energy products. O’Malley mandated that no less than 2 percent of Maryland’s electrical power be squeezed from solar sources.  

solar-realist artSearch these United  States thoroughly and you’ll never find a newspaper more devoted to spreading unalloyed left-wing balderdash than the Baltimore Sun.  It is therefore all the more astonishing to find so progressive a rag making room for a story critical of their boyish, guitar strumming governor. But lo, it seems that even the egregious Sun can only slop so much lipstick on some pigs before abandoning the effort as futile. In April, 2015, the Sun admitted that O’Malley’s job creation was an artifice attributable to federal subsidization, not the Governor’s touted economic prowess. The paper also acknowledged that when federal outlays decreased in 2011,”Maryland’s gross state product plateaued, dropping the state to 49th in annual growth,” and that once federal infusions were reduced, “Maryland’s poor economic diversification became apparent.” Also, let it not pass unremarked, O’Malley is a rapacious gun grabber in the grand liberal tradition. The Governor announced his bid for the White House on May 30th, 2015, and seems not to have fully recognized the absurdity of the idea until February 1, 2016, when he called it quits and limped back to Annapolis.  And why did O’Malley, who isn’t Black, isn’t a huggable relic from the radical ’60s, and who isn’t female, think he had a chance of beating Hillary in the primaries? Simple– he’s an idiot. But he plays guitar, did we mention that?


The carnage on the right is no less horrible. Take Lindsey Graham for instance. Lindsey was silly to think he could win a bunch of primaries despite the lengthy list of betrayals he visited upon his own base, not to mention such baneful optics as dining  with Obama while Rand Paul filibustered against drone attacks on Americans, countenanced by the FAA Reauthorization Act.

grahamReaders may have dismissed it from mind, but on May 18, 2015, Graham slipped into his faux-conservative livery and announced his candidacy on CBS’s This Morning, assuring viewers he should be the perfect president because “the world is falling apart.” His most memorable  statement during his  short-lived campaign consisted of telling a CNN interviewer that Donald Trump was a jackass, after which he returned to CBS This Morning to reiterate his belief that Donald Trump was a jackass. Lindsey failed to gain sufficient support to qualify for the CNN debate in August, but he was admitted to the secondary debates on CNN and CNBC in October despite polling  a consistent 1 percent. He surrendered to reality on December 21, 2015, “suspending” his campaign and threw his support behind Jeb Bush. It is probably unnecessarily cruel to relate that Graham’s full throated endorsement made not an iota of difference in Jeb’s own miserable poll numbers—but we are all about the details here at WOOF.

How many were going to the Reagan Library?

Several of Jeb's promotional efforts seemd ill-advised.

Several of Jeb’s promotional efforts seemed ill-advised.

Long after such worthies as Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul exited, “Jeb!” (the artist formerly known as Bush) remained in the game despite an equally lackluster reception and a far less appealing campaign platform. Of Jeb it seems fair to remark: Never have so many placed so much confidence, influence, and treasure behind a surefire nominee only to achieve  exactly “nada” as the candidate might say. The Republican establishment, insulated from its own grassroots,  saw fit to toss Jeb into the malestrom without a moment’s thought given to real-world dynamics. Unlike Democrats, the GOP has long professed embarrassment at its own base, beginning with the cursed McCarthyites, and thence to the cursed Goldwaterites, and thence to the cursed Reaganites, and, of course, nowadays all those God-awful Tea Party yokels. This weirdly schizoid policy has long been one of rhetorically praising the “big tent” while snubbing any voter to the right of, say, Susan Collins. But this time, the yokels were ready to rumble.

The embarrassing hayseeds in flyover country were keenly aware of Jeb’s support for Common Core and its insidious assault on their children’s educations. They’d heard him insist that illegal aliens crashing our border did so as “an act of love,” and they knew he told Reuters he was guided by the no-nonsense political philosophy of “a moderate Republican who still has conservative principles,” whatever that means. Into the bargain, his support for the NSA’s collection of metadata and the full corpus of the Patriot Act completely alienated the libertarian right.  Too, Jeb often addressed Hispanic audiences in Spanish promising to enact “immigration reform,” which the yokels were pretty certain translated into abandoning the concept of lawful entry and condoning the unchecked flow of illegals across our southern border.

turtleDespite entering battle with the fattest war chest in primary history, Jeb never won a primary. He spoke to rooms of half-dozing oldsters and infamously begged them to “please clap!”  When journalists realized  he carried toy turtles around in his pockets, handing them out to kids and telling them, “slow and steady wins the race,” they had a field day. And when Jeb tweeted a photo of a turtle crawling across somebody’s lawn and exclaimed, “I met a joyful tortoise on my way to the Reagan Library,” his gravitas was pretty much shot entirely.

Gamely, Jeb barnstormed South Carolina calling it his must-win state. It was here he vowed to stop Trump and emerge victorious. Ever the optimists, both FOX and the liberal media agreed. But even with brother “W” and his mom campaigning for him and the remainder of his $100 million campaign fund fully invested,  Jeb went nowhere. Trump won a substantial victory with Rubio a distant second, and Cruz finishing right behind Rubio. Confronted with a humiliating single digit showing, Bush finally took the hint. He suspended his campaign and told a cluster of morose supporters, “The people of Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina have spoken, and I really respect their decision.” If he had evinced a fraction of that respect going in, he might have done a whole lot better—provided he didn’t mention turtles.  (Turtles are idiots.)

jeb again


Coughing, cackling, and barking we go…

The DNC expected to coronate Hillary this year without a ripple of dissent; but Bernie Sanders, who initially seemed an antic figure mimicking serious competition, became a thoroughgoing nuisance by January.  Enough super delegating to rig the scoreboard, some phenomenal luck, such as winning six consecutive coin-tosses to settle district balloting, and the fact that her “Southern Firewall”  held, kept Mrs. Clinton in the lead; but not without Bernie’s motley cadres at her heels.

"Arf, arf, arf, arf!"

Arf, arf, arf, arf!”

Hillary is an awful campaigner by any standard, but her 2016 game is particularly weird. Besides her usual repertoire of fake rural accents and deranged cackling, she seemed to choke on her words in Iowa and New York, and made a point of barking like a dog in Reno.  Her uncontrollable coughing spasms generated numerous rumors (as did her prismatic horn rims).  An additional coughing spasm struck her on March 12th, while sermonizing on the sacred obligation to throw more money at our failing schools, and lasted four minutes—longest yet. Hillary’s “special glasses” last adorned her brow during a campaign event at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas. Some say the glasses mitigate long-term effects from her Benghazi concussion. Huma Abedin’s emails describe Hillary as “easily” and “often confused,” but Huma married Anthony Weiner, so she is obviously extremely confused and may not be a reliable judge.

Big Love (the other hugging incident)

Yes, somebody photoihopped this picture, but so badly we touched it up a little in the name of quality journalism.

Yes, somebody photoshopped this picture, but so badly that we touched it up a little in the name of quality journalism.

The next bit of gobsmackery was Chris Christie’s baffling endorsement of Donald Trump, who had only recently denounced him as duplicitous in the George Washington Bridge scandal and mocked the big guy’s 2012 “hug”of Barack Obama–a partial embrace immortalized by photographers while Christie and Rappin’ Preezy cavorted seaside in the wake of Superstorm Sandy.  Trump thundered, “When I saw it, I said I think he’s going to vote for Obama. Honestly, it was terrible….Obama went to New Jersey and…he was like a little child, Christie….he was like a little boy: ‘oh, I’m with the president.’”

Yet there stood New Jersey’s biggest and most tragically unrequited Bruce Springsteen fan, suspending his campaign and pronouncing himself thrilled to be in Fort Worth endorsing Trump, who he suddenly remembered was a decade-long family friend who would keep his word, restore the nation to greatness, and whom he now perceived to be the “only Republican running who can defeat Hillary Clinton.”  For his part, Trump suddenly remembered that the man he’d been lambasting as the commie-hugging little boy cum “Bridgegate” conspirator who cost Romney the election, had been “a wonderful governor,” and a “standout for many years.” Trump’s eagerness to praise those who praise him is no secret–but what was Christie’s motive? Some believe he’s angling for the vice-presidency, but Trump knows his own preternaturally sudden conversion to conservatism is problematic for millions of voters whose doubts would hardly be assauged should he tap the supersized RINO as his running mate in Cleveland.


Mitt scolds the Trumpeteers 

mitt too

Now, voters; you know you’ve been silly!

On March 3rd a deeply troubled RINO establishment, stripped of  champions like Lindsey, Jeb, and Christie, sent Mitt Romney out to carefully and patiently explain to to all the silly voters why Donald Trump “has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president.”  WOOF doesn’t doubt Mitt’s sincerity, and he made some solid points–but the GOP’s dopey certitude that Romney would leave Trump supporters slapping their foreheads and exclaiming, “Gadzooks, what fools we’ve been!” was risible. Even stupid people don’t like having their intelligence insulted–and a lot of Trump’s supporters (witness Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Bill O’Reilly) aren’t even stupid. Mitt’s homily ricocheted, of course, functioning as a defacto pep rally for its intended victim.

Don’t shoot, G-men, don’t shoot!

hillprisonerMeanwhile, the FBI is reportedly amassing ever-more lurid and damnatory evidence of treasonable misconduct by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton despite which Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department will not lift a finger, leading to rumors that Valerie Jarrett may once again have issued a stand-down order. However we’ve also learned Hillary’s personal computer geek recently received immunity from prosecution. This only occurs when a grand-jury investigation in progress–and this presupposes a suspect about whom the jury is even now hearing testimony. Dast we assume that it’s Hillary?  More on this as developments warrant! (See what we did there?)

The frost is off the bumpkin! 

clinton billBill Clinton is losing his mojo. It began during the 2008 election when the newly Obama-crazed media discovered for the first time that Bill was a liar, a perjurer, an adulterer, and even, for a week or two, a racist. It doesn’t help matters that the once boyish Bubba has aged poorly, resembling at this point a stooped, slim-wristed, nearly-androgynous oldster whose Viagra-swollen eyes bulge eerily beneath a matronly helmet of fastidiously cosseted hair– hair so white it amplifies the pallor of Slick Willy’s dissipated physiognomy. And when Mr. Clinton gets angry (which is more and more often, we’ve noticed) the effect is trebled.

Oversights happen. The press forgot to keep Bill’s flame alive, so busy were they propping up the real first Black president. Today, millennials look at Bill Clinton and see the rickety old perv who gave Juanita Broaddrick a fat lip, sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey, paid off Paula Jones, and lied to the entire country about Monica Lewinsky. They don’t see Huck Finn in a power tie when Bill walks in the room; they just see a douche bag.

Bill when he was cool--nobody minded his sax addiction either.

Bill when he was cool–nobody minded his sax addiction either.

Recently, Bill was in the midst of lying his brains  out on Hillary’s behalf in front of an audience in Bluffton, South Carolina, when a former Marine interrupted him. “The thing is,” the Marine pointed out, “we had four lives in Benghazi killed and your wife tried to cover it up.”  Even more horrifying than this surreal breach of the official liberal immunity credo was the fact that perhaps a third of the room cheered the at this point, and there was no Don Lemon to insist on going to commercial.  The Marine continued elaborating on Benghazi and Mrs. Clinton’s falsehoods, until Sheriff’s deputies hauled him out of the room. Clinton shouted “Do you have the courage to listen to my answer?” (This to a United States Marine, mind you), and “Don’t throw him out. Shut up and listen to my answer. I’ll answer it!” But the deputies had by then dragged the man out of the gymnasium. Clinton caught his breath and after a moment’s refocusing, defaulted to the vast-right-wing-conspiracy defense, shouting, “Can I just say something? That’s what’s wrong! His mind has been poisoned by lies and he won’t listen!” This is where a swell of cheers and applause always used to reach an affirmatory crescendo, but the magic is gone—the frost is off the bumpkin. Some other guy yelled “Bullsh*t!” only without the asterisk, and a lady jumped up and shouted, “Hillary lied over four coffins, she lied and she lied to those families. So all those families are liars?”

bubba upset

“Will you listen to my answer?”

Will you listen to my answer?” the Bubba pleaded; “Did she lie?” the woman demanded; “Are you afraid of my answer?” countered Clinton; “No I’m not afraid because I know you’re going to lie,” the woman responded, at which point she too was seized by Sheriff’s deputies and dragged from the hall while Clinton continued to roar, “Why are you afraid of my answer? Will you let me answer?” But the Bubba was drained–atremble with barely suppressed rage, one raspy voice marooned in a gymnasium awash with murmurings and angry bursts of dissent. These reminders that his glory days were behind him seemed to leave Clinton adrift. Perhaps this is why, as Olaf Ekberg reported in the American Mirror, “Clinton never did answer.”


When scary things happen to good liberals….


Alison Howard, fighting the insanity of it all.

It seems to have started in San Francisco where pioneering psychologist Alison Howard discovered a substantial number of patients succumbing to a previously unheard of affliction resembling a standard phobia but with a tincture of culture-related panic disorder thrown in.  And while the exact nosology of the problem remains elusive, the cause is apparent: Howard’s clients have it in common that their fragile liberal psyches cannot cope with the existential threat of Donald Trump. Less severe cases report obsessing over such concerns as “What …happened to Trump during his childhood…to make him such a bad person?” Others are more traumatized than quizzical, wrestling with the perceived dissonance of it all. “We’ve been told our whole lives not to say bad things about people, to not be bullies, to not ostracize people based on their skin color,” Howard explains. “We have these social mores and he breaks all of them and he’s successful. And people are wondering how he gets away with it!”


Menninger miffed by McCarthy and Mike.

Liberals also sought counseling in the wake of George “W” Bush’s victory over John Kerry in 2004, remember? Actually, psychology’s valiant struggle to cope with the expanding threat of political and ideative diversity is traceable to earlier manifestations. Readers who are long enough in the tooth may recall that during the crest of McCarthyism in the early ‘50s, psychiatric heavyweight Karl Menninger, (Director of the famed clinic that bears his name) became so innervated by Joe’s “sadism” that he found it necessary to take pen to paper and complain to Senator Frank Carlson of Kansas, that “many people delight in the vulgarity, irresponsibility, and, to my mind, viciousness of Senator McCarthy…” which Menninger proceeded to associate, however oddly, with the success of detective novels by Mickey Spillane. (In fact, the author and the Junior Senator never met, although Spillane once opined that McCarthy was “a slob,” which Joe really kind of was, when we think about it.)

one lonely nightMenninger seemed driven to expound on what he considered a malevolent consanguinity linking the author and the Junior Senator, and he expressed particular dismay over Spillane’s best-seller One Lonely Night in which the fictional hero, Mike Hammer, guns down 40 communist spies with a Thompson submachine gun. (In the manuscript, it was 80, but Spillane’s publisher thought 80 was too gory.)  By way of emphasizing this tenuous linkage, Menninger no sooner finished his ardent denunciation of McCarthy than he added, as if the one thought naturally begat the other,“over twenty-four million copies of these various Mickey Spillane books have been snapped up by someone!

A loosely held together person…

trumpClearly, the willingness of America’s psychotherapeutic professionals to serve as champions of the progressive cause predates the rise of Donald Trump. And Before you dismiss all this with a sneer, gentle readers–before you shrug off the magnitude of Trump-centered anxiety in the present epoch–consider the very real cost  in human terms! According to Washington Post reporter Paul Schwartzman:

  • Emma Taylor lies abed restively in Los Angeles where she reports: “I literally can’t sleep because I just thought about how Trump may actually win the Presidency and now I’m having a panic attack.”
  • Another Californian explains: “He’s extremely reactionary and that’s what scares me the most. I feel totally powerless and it’s horrible.”
  • Whitney Royston, a 30 year old resident of Littleton, Colorado confides, “If he were to become president, I fear that our world would come tumbling down.”
  • Nancy Lauro, 52, an art teacher, sits at her computer in Brooklyn, frantically Googling information on how to become an Italian citizen should Trump become president—or, she thinks, possibly a citizen of Ireland because it turns out they speak English.

When Trump syndrome strikes!

Judith Schweiger Levy, a New York psychologist, reports that she is currently rendering assistance to a “middle-aged business woman” who made the traumatic discovery earlier this month that her sister is thinking about voting for Trump. Worse still, Dr. Levy admits that she, too, is developing symptoms, telling the interviewer, “I’m starting to feel anxious just talking about him.” Levy is not alone. Psychologist Mary Libbey of Central Park West describes similar abreactions. Couching her analysis in concise, professional terms, Dr. Libbey explains, “I’m terrified that he could win. His impulsivity, his incomplete sentences, his strange, squinty eyes — to my mind, he’s a loosely held together person.”  Loosely-held-together Personality Disorder isn’t in the DSM, however, so it’s hard to confirm the diagnosis.


Ted eats a bug?

So what was that glowing white blob that appeared on candidate Cruz’s lower lip in the widely circulated video from the recent FOX debate?  Whatever it is/was, the Senator swept it up with a deft flick of his tongue, and appeared to ingest it.

ted bugWith no superior insights available, not even any  “Barker Street Irregulars” reporting in, we have no recourse but to repeat the current internet speculation, which goes as follows: ONE: Ted ate a bug–although it would have been a strange bug–possibly a louse. One site speculates on the existence of albino tics, but we checked and they don’t exist. TWO: One Holly Anderson took to Twitter to opine that the mystery item was a chunk of styrofoam packing peanut. Holly does not follow WOOF on Twitter, (we checked) so we can’t vouch for her judgment. THREE: While opinions on REDDIT are legion, the booger theory has established a substantial lead, but this may be because the booger theory is the most immediately cringe inducing and most REDDIT posters are unemployed cellar dwellers who obsess over things like boogers routinely. FOUR: It might have been a tonsil stone– this theory is gaining in circulation since it was originally proposed by someone named Ana on The Young Turks.  We don’t want to look into tonsil stones, though because they sound really disgusting.

Marco pops a pill

Marco Rubio has several times been observed furtively popping as-yet-unidentified pills into his mouth. The fact that he attempts to get away with this while on camera in the midst of minutely scrutinized debates suggests he either desperately needs the pills to control some medical condition, or that he is succumbing to some irresistable addictive impulse. If the pills are truly innocuous, let’s say breath mints or Rolaids—why fish them from his pockets during  televised debate segments? Yet a video of the his last FOX performance shows Rubio sneaking a pill into his mouth, and the Senator has been glimpsed popping pills often enough that rumors are growing in number and floridity.

rubio pops a pill

Opinions on Twitter range from “pills keep his body from rejecting the control chip implanted in his brain,” to  “he’s popping Xanax or Beta Blockers, which explains his robotic bullsh*t!”  But popping benzos on camera seems ill advised and, one might hope, unnecessary. Beta blockers are sometimes used to address the nervousness associated with public speaking, and, one would assume, debating Donald Trump. Diabetes might require pills and explain the candidates preoccupation with chugging designer water—but again, why not appear on stage with your blood sugar already stabilized? Or has the Senator entered the brave new world of “nootropics,” or their not-so-distant cousins, amphetamines? “New-tropics” like Provigil are marketed as speed without the consequences—no crash, no addiction—just extra energy, wakefulness, and heightened mental acuity. Nootropics, like amphetamines, are available in pill form and can result in thirst and dehydration, especially when abused. Is Rubio sharpening his brain with Provigil before wading into eristic combat? Perhaps, although a less charitable blog might note the absence of any conspicuous result.


Hillary denies being one…

You can see why the call the show "Hardball," right?

You can see why they call the show “Hardball,” right? Oh, wait….

No wonder the Democrat debates draw comparatively paltry ratings. The field is two people, one an overt socialist, and the other a costumed, dissembled socialist who cannot, when asked, name a single distinction between herself and any other socialist. “What’s the difference between a socialist and a Democrat?” Chris Matthews asked Her Magnificence (to coin Tina Brown’s goo-goo-eyed cognomen for Mrs. Clinton) on Hardball, realizing in that awful, frozen moment that he had accidentally bollixed his guest. Readers who are not liberals may be slow to comprehend how often the progressive mind actually subscribes to the very flummeries its propaganda machine heaps upon liberal politicians. Thus Matthews may have fallen into the trap of supposing that Clinton was the brilliant, accomplished lioness described by the lickspittle media. Surely she’d have an answer at hand, or be able to compose one after a moment’s thought.  But alas, nyet. Her magnificence was utterly flustered. She defaulted to, “Well, I can tell you what I am. I am a progressive Democrat.” Again Matthews asked, “How’s that different than a Socialist?” Mrs. Clinton explained, “I’m a progressive Democrat who likes to get things done…” Matthews said “Okay… well, see, I’m asking you. You’re a Democrat, he’s a Socialist. You — would you like someone to call you a Socialist?” Hillary fired back, “But I’m not one.” Matthews’ eyes grew glassier. He began massaging his frontal lobe and murmured “Okay…” but Mrs. Clinton sought to clarify the matter further by adding, “I’m not one.”


“As Maine goes…”

"At least he means it"

“At least he means it”

And then came Maine, where most residents outside urban areas hold arguably right-of-center views (witness the election and re-election of Paul LePage as governor) but so pride themselves on fierce Yankee independence that they are immediately duped by any leftist wearing Bean boots and plaid and claiming to be an Independent (especially if he configures his bumper stickers to replicate the MOXIE logo, as did the wily Senator Angus King (Independent, read: Democrat). Predictably, therefore, Maine handed Sanders his 4th primary win…while Maine’s Republican caucus  opted for Ted Cruz.  Bernie’s rumpled, threadbare style appeals to “indy” liberals who’ve wearied of sticking up for a pack of incorrigible liars whose policies invariably fail; especially when the liars have been at it so long, so clumsily, and so loudly, that people are noticing.  Is it any wonder Bernie  appeals to voters ignorant of the mathematical ludicrosity of his prescriptions? Historically, such prescriptions invariably conduce toward  hell on earth, but folks like a guy who honestly says he’ll lead them there.


Hillary’s nomination= President Trump?

hill and donCould Bernie Sanders prove tougher than Hillary for Trump to beat in a general election? To examine this relatively heterodox viewpoint, WOOF visited the effete sanctums of Salon and checked out Steve Almond’s article, “Hillary will never survive the Trump onslaught: It’s not fair, but it makes her a weak nominee.” Almond is a Bernie supporter  whose analysis might therefore be regarded as biased—although he professes great admiration for Hillary as well. Hillary, he insists, brings too much baggage to the table to survive a clash with Trump. Worse, Almond worries that “no matter who the GOP nominee is, the battle plan against Hillary will be the same: a tawdry and unrelenting relitigation of all the phony scandals cooked up by the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ that she identified nearly two decades ago.”

Mr. Almond wisely avoids revisiting the context in which Her Magnificence excogitated that lurid term, preferring to enumerate the sundry “phony scandals” we at WOOF, in conjunction with “vast” numbers of right-wing co-conspirators, apparently “cooked up.”  These include: “Whitewater, Travelgate, Troopergate, Lewinskygate…Vince Foster Murdergate… the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Pardons… Benghazi, the private email server, [and] the Wall Street speeches.” Wow, we’ve been busy! But Almond also warns that the “dark corporate money and talented propagandists aligned against Hillary will make the Swift Boat Veterans look like toy soldiers.” …So, they’ll look like John Kerry? That’s sad.


“Dark corporate money and talented propagandists aligned against Hillary” (file photo)

One additional impediment, Almond notes, is “the reality…that Hillary is among the most hated politicians in America.” Almond’s article seemed a rarity at first, but suddenly a bumper crop of articles and essays sprang up echoing his sentiments. For reasons that remain semi-mysterious, more and more liberal opinionists are issuing dire warnings that Her Magnificence cannot prevail in a general election. WOOF would congratulate Almond on his courage in presenting the bellwether piece on this theme were it not for the fact that he ends his bold monograph by assuring his readers that, “None of this is to suggest that Hillary won’t beat Trump, if they wind up as the nominees.” What?  Either Almond’s editor insisted on a more Clinton-friendly postscript, or the author got to the end of his piece and decided he’d been wrong the whole time, in which case, shouldn’t he have torn it up?

Bernie’s blues

Curses! Foiled again!

Curses! Foiled again!

Which reminds  us: Bernie  has consistently performed better than anyone expected in Democratic primary contests. But it never seems to help much. The liberal establishment networks continued to portray him as a laughable, idiosyncratic wannabe tilting at windmills even as Hillary (whom they extol) seems to emerge from every discomfiture another few delegates ahead.  Bernie took Michigan 50 percent to Clinton’s 48 percent, despite the fact that every available poll showed Clinton with an insurmountable advantage, often as much as 20 points. But just when the battling Bolshevik from Vermont almost broke a smile, Hillary turned in a phenomenal win in Mississippi, grabbing 83 percent of the voters to Bernie’s 16. This placed La Clinton in the lead with more than 200 pledged delegates. When Bernie racked up primary wins in Colorado, Minnesota, and Oklahoma (okay, that was weird), Hillary’s southern strategy held like a stone wall.  Southerners tend to detest socialists, which is why Hillary wears a pantsuit and calls herself a progressive, which was good enough for Democrats in Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.


Trump: The real terrorist!


News item: Bill Ayers hates Donald Trump. Can we go home now?

On March 11th Bill Ayers (socially acceptable Weather Underground terrorist, Obama groomer) entered the nominative fray by organizing an anti-Trump protest at the University of Chicago. Ayers addressed approximately 9,000 leftwing supporters, inveighing against Trump whom the protesters’ signage branded “the real terrorist.”  WOOF regrets we cannot locate a pull quote from Ayers’s remarks, because one would surely contribute to the drollery of this post, but the main question is: who would instigate such a freak show? The obvious double dative by which detectives would arrive at a suspect is Cicero’s famous inquiry “cui bono?” or “who benefits?” The answer is Trump. After all, nobody who attended the protest is likely to vote for anyone other than Bernie Sanders, everybody there already hates Trump, while vacillating voters throughout the American homeland are doubtless galvanized into solidarity with Trump at the mere sight of Ayers once again jackassing it up for the media. Subsequently, a couple of Trump appearances were cancelled because the unemployed proletarians  were rioting.  And  again, this will serve mainly to rally undecided Americans to the billionaire’s campaign.  However Trump arranged this, whether by subtle manipulation or outright financial disbursement, it was a brilliant gambit.  Ayers, you sucker!


Sister Sarah is not amused!

sarah raises fistsJust ahead of the March 10 debate on CNN, Ted Cruz saw fit to borrow a phrase from Rush Limbaugh, telling a CBN interviewer that. “Donald does well with voters who have relatively low information…”  The Senator may have meant to recruit  previously benighted  Trump fans, brought thus to sudden wisdom, but in the event he merely ignited the ever-coruscative Sarah Palin, who took to her Facebook page and lambasted Cruz for his efforts. “Ted Cruz’s insinuation reeks of all the reasons America knows ‘the status quo has got to go,’” raged Sister Sarah, adding. “Cruz’s latest dig strays from humorous into downright nasty. Cruz is right, though – independent, America-first, commonsense conservatives supporting Donald Trump ARE ‘low information’ when it comes to having any information on Cruz’s ability to expand the conservative movement, beat Hillary Clinton, unify or lead the nation.” Yipes! There was a lot more, too, but you get the picture. Sarah Palin is all in when she’s in, and she takes her partisanship seriously. Palin ended her diatribe with the nastiest obloquy one can hurl at a conservative icon, to wit: “Ted Cruz is just like any other politician!” So there! At least Sarah’s beautiful when she’s angry!


Pretty reporter mauled by ape?


Michelle Fields, wronged, or wrong?

Okay, next, Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields claimed she was assaulted at a March rally by Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who, she said, grabbed her and forced her from the stage as she approached Trump to ask a few questions. At first, it seemed cut and dry: Trump’s ape of a campaign manager roughed up the pretty reporter for trying to do her job. But then came Lewandowski’s denial. He insisted he’d never touched Fields, whom he dismissed as “totally delusional.”  And video? In one of those oddities that seem to characterize this primary season, despite myriad cameras recording the event, no footage of the occurrence depicts the alleged tussle with sufficient clarity to permit a conclusion. True, The Daily Beast posted video, announcing it “shows the moment Lewandowski grabbed Fields,” except the video, in our famously unbiased view, is so mirky it might as well be said to show the lady in the polka-dot dress aiming a revolver at Bobby Kennedy–because we can’t see that happening either. Breitbart, of course, demanded an apology from the Trump camp.


Incriminating video? We can’t even see the grassy knoll.

Fields next accused the Trump bunch of traducing her good name, telling FOX’s Megan Kelly, “They released a statement calling me a liar. They have basically done a character assassination on me. They’re linking to blogs with conspiracies about me, and they’re not telling the truth.” Worse, by Sunday, Fields began to suspect her own company’s support was eroding.  She tweeted that Breitbart was suddenly refusing to defend her character or vouch for her professional credibility– so she quit her job. But before you conclude that an attention seeking reporter misled the public in an effort to gain notoriety only to be found out by her employers who withdrew their support whereupon she affected to quit before the axe fell– well, consider the next turn of events…


Shapiro walks.

Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro (whom WOOF considers a solid conservative and an asset to the cause) not only packed up his desk and bade his incredulous co-workers adieu, he next issued a statement averring that “Breitbart News not only stood by and did nothing outside of tepidly asking for an apology, they then attempted to abandon Michelle by silencing staff from tweeting or talking about the issue.” Shapiro added that “[Andrew Breitbart’s] life mission has been betrayed, Indeed, Breitbart News, under the chairmanship of Steve Bannon, has put a stake through the heart of  Andrew’s legacy.” Yipes! Fields next filed a criminal complaint against Lewandowski in Jupiter, Florida near the site of whatever did or didn’t happen. WOOF will continue to report developments in an utterly neutral fashion (perhaps for the first time ever) unless we discover that by staunchly defending Fields we might induce Trump’s campaign to offer us a substantial cash “donation” to switch sides–to which idea we should simply like to say we are not entirely ill-disposed.


Possible child molester endorses Trump!

ben carsonTrump’s views of his competitors change a lot–perhaps you’ve noticed.  Ted Cruz went from being a nice guy to a horrible man whom nobody likes. Obama went from being exactly what the country needed to the worst president ever. Hillary went from being “very, very capable” to “evil,” although we suppose those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. People can also improve themselves, meaning that reprobates can attain virtual sainthood once their views and remarks advance Trump’s interests. Example: former presidential candidate Ben Carson was elevated in the immediate wake of his endorsement of Trump, which occurred shortly after Carson’s withdrawal from the race. Trump only weeks earlier berated Carson’s autobiography as implausible, asking aloud, “How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?” He called Carson a liar, and threw in “pathological” for good measure, insisting during one interview that  “It’s in [Carson’s ] book that he’s got a pathological temper, that’s a big problem because you don’t cure that … as an example: child molesting. You don’t cure these people. You don’t cure a child molester. There’s no cure for it. Pathological, there’s no cure for that.” Well–Carson was at least correct that Trump misunderstood the word pathological, and was right in saying the billionaire hadn’t actually called him a child molester.  Still, it wasn’t until he endorsed Trump that Trump realized Ben Carson was  “a terrific guy, loved by everybody…just really liked and respected by everybody.” In Carson’s transformation, surely, hope may be found for each of us earnestly seeking redemption.


Dangerously religious?!
ted-cruz-vampire-575x367On March 11th, countless devotees of Drudge were shocked by a headline proclaiming: ‘TED IS THE ANOINTED ONE!’ HOLY GHOST VIDEO REVEALED; DAD SPEAKING IN TONGUES; SUPPORTERS ‘LAY HANDS’ ON CRUZ AT RALLY!  Curious clickers were shunted to a conspiracy-oriented link denouncing Cruz as a closet Pentecostal (yipes?) who only pretends membership in the First Baptist Church in Houston to deceive his gullible supporters. Worse still, if that’s even possible, the site revealed Cruz’s wife was raised by Seventh Day Adventists! But it gets even worse! The article references a Pew Research Center study proving Pentecostalism “emphasizes such practices as speaking in tongues, prophesying, divine healing and other miraculous signs of the Holy Spirit” and these psychotics are scheming to take over America and turn us into a fundamentalist theocracy, and Cruz is their means to this end!  (A kind of Melchizedekian Candidate–see what we did there?) And as if this wasn’t horrifying enough, there’s video! Drudge’s headline ballyhooed shocking scenes of Cruz engaged in all manner of depraved rituals. Per Drudge, we expected  at bare minimum to witness the Senator jabbering in tongues kissing  rattlesnakes, chugging cyanide, and declaring himself the reborn Elijah– or maybe John the Beloved–or at least John from Cincinatti, all the while flouncing about in lurid robes like some Pentecostal Aleister Crowley amidst The Babalon Working…maybe sporting a pyramidic headdress adorned with the all-seeing eye of Horus…maybe knifing a hapless goat? We barely possessed the gumption to witness such a paradigm-shattering expose, but summoning all our courage, we clicked the arrow!
Oh. Matt!

Rascally Matt

Darn that rascally Matt Drudge! Not since theatre-goers paid good money to attend the premier of Plan 9 from Outer Space has any production fallen so pathetically short of audience expectations.  Not only were zero goats sacrificed, the videos provided nothing more traumatizing than a melange of activities that would shock nobody even glancingly familiar with fundamentalist or evangelical practices. Cruz never lays hands on anybody, but we watch as he receives a blessing from Pastor Gaylon Wiley, who baptized Cruz and converted his parents from atheism.  Cruz is seen receiving  a laying on of hands, but this is no dark ritual by which Pentecostal  cult leaders imbue their minions with powers of mass deception—it is a practice common to many sects of Christianity and to many forms of Judaism. It is also routine in the Mormon Church, although Drudge backed Mitt Romney without reservation in 2012.  Sarah Palin was raised in a Pentecostal denomination, which fact never alarmed Drudge–and only last September Donald Trump received an ecumenical laying on of hands by clerics asking God to direct his actions.  We guess Matt missed that event– but we know he can’t be everywhere.


KKK for Hillary!

Grand Dragon Quigg-- at least we think it is--hard to be sure.

Grand Dragon Quigg– at least we think it is–it’s difficult to say for sure….

A certified  Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan’s California chapter, who bears responsibility for recruitment in the western United States and presumably speaks for all the Klantons (not a typo) under his authority, has declared wholehearted support for Hillary. “We want Hillary Clinton to win,” insists klansman Will Quigg, explaining, “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected…[but] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colors are going to show.”

Sadly for those of us not in the loop, Grand Dragon Quigg (whose initiative will surely see him elevated to Grand Wizard shortly) is unwilling to say precisely how he came upon his knowledge of Hillary’s “hidden agenda,” or even what that agenda might be.  Should Quigg see fit to enlighten us, we will immediately inform our readers. Meanwhile, we counsel a level head and a tranquil demeanor. After all, whatever Hillary Clinton’s secret agenda may be, assuming it exists at all, it is almost certain to be superior to the one she’s promoting publically.


Donald ascendent/ Kasich reborn!

"This is me, in whom I am well pleased!"

“This is me, in whom I am well pleased!”

On Tuesday the 15th, Donald Trump won Florida, humiliating “Little Marco”and walking away with all 99 delegates, leaving the “favorite son” to bleed out. The Donald also found favor in Illinois and North Carolina. Despite this, the previously ignorable John Kasich found cause to wax ecstatic, reanimated by his first ever primary victory (in Ohio, where he happens, coincidentally, to be governor). He told reporters he was now in it to win. Lovers of the Kafkaesque will enjoy monitoring the sudden outbreak of seemingly serious discussion on cable news networks to the effect that Kasich, having finally won a primary, is suddenly Trump’s major competition for the nomination. The intellectual validity of such discussion is on a par with say, a round robin of newscasters earnestly mulling over the likelihood that planet Nibiru will collide with Earth this summer–but by now you’ve probably noticed the media are fantasy prone.

Wait, is that line from “Key Largo,” or “Little Marco?”

ricoWith the grey dawn of March 16th came an additional casualty report—the demise of Little Marco. We have long felt that when this (pretty much inevitable) moment arrived, the candidate should make the shortest speech yet uttered by any politician suspending a campaign—we thought it would be admirable, campy, and quick,  if he just stepped up to the microphone and quoted Edward G. Robinson’s classic last line from Little Caesar (Warner Bros., 1931), namely, “Oh, mother of mercy—is this the end of Marco?”  Okay, yes we know–Robinson’s character was Rico, not Marco, but the facile wit of the paraphrase plus the uncanny parallelism surely justifies the adaptation.

Symbolic of the entire RINO delusion, Rubio really believed he would take Florida handsomely—whereas he only succeeded in preventing Cruz from gaining momentum, and ensured victory for Trump, whom he purports to loathe. With classic RINO timing, Rubio blocked Cruz from pulling ahead in several states, and decided to get out of the way only once he’d rendered the Texan’s odds nearly prohibitive. Even more irksome, Rubio ignored our Edward G. Robinson idea, opting instead to condemn America’s immersion in “the politics of resentment.”  Such politics, Marco cautioned in parting, could only fracture our communities, divide our citizens, and “leave us as a nation where people literally hate each other because they have different political opinions!”  The young Senator seemed strangely unaware of the fact that President Obama accomplished all of that years ago.


The walking dead…

walking deadKasich and Sanders have something in common besides loathing Donald Trump–both men are determined to go the distance despite having no perceptible path to victory. Some say Sanders will stay in the fight because he loves getting campaign donations. Can it be? The austere, Aveo driving socialist has a history of dipping into campaign funds for nepotistic enrichment.  He once handed his wife $150,000 and told the Federal Election Commission it was a “consulting fee.” And that was before he was raising the big bucks. Consider this: Although Bernie’s recent clean sweep of Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii barely diminished Hillary’s advantage (she remains in front by 280 pledged delegates and 440 superdelegates), it performed a different but perhaps equally important function. As the New York Times noted, “the wins are likely to bestow on the Sanders campaign a surge of online donations,” greatly enhancing his ability to advertise for even more campaign donations. (But hey, at least he’s honest.)  Kasich, on the other hand, mainly loves Kasich, with a kind of amaurotic self-absorption. The RINOs adore his faux-conservative history of aisle-crossing, compromise and accommodationism and want him kept in play as a possible means of toppling Trump the Barbarian. This will, of course, only ruin Cruz and advance Trump, but RINOs (okay, Rhinos) are not particularly intelligent creatures and often forget why they’re charging in the midst of the charge.  We looked it up.

Run, run, it’s the Great Uniter!


Ewwww, yuk!

On March 16 the willfully phlegmatic John Boehner, whom we all fervently hoped we’d heard the last of, materialized like a conjured Tulpa in Boca Raton, Florida. Regarding the primaries, he puffed, “They all had a chance to win, none of them won. So I’m for none of the above. I’m for Paul Ryan to be our nominee!” Wuhh? Okay, true, the convention may arrive without anyone landing the 1,237  delegates necessary to secure the nomination and true, this may trigger a brokered convention—but we carefully counted Paul Ryan’s delegates so far, and -he doesn’t have any.  Oh, and as soon as he “learned” Boehner nominated him, Ryan (aka “none of the above”) dashed to a CNBC microphone to recite, “I’m not running for president. I made that decision, consciously…I don’t see that happening. I’m not thinking about it.”  And if you don’t find that string of prefabricated mendacities absolutely side splitting, you just don’t know funny! Prepare yourselves, gentle readers, to be “saved” by Paul Ryan, “the great uniter.”


More March madness…

  • March 17, Bernie the Battling Bolshevik concedes that Hillary won the Missouri primary—which everyone else already knew.
  • March 21,   Bill Clinton exhorts a roomful of Hillary supporters to “put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us.” Does that include his wife? Bill is now missing from the campaign.
  • March 21, Mitt Romney endorses Ted Cruz, accusing Kasich, whom he endorsed in Ohio and now un-endorses, of staying in the race solely to deny Cruz the nomination.
  • March 22: Prior to the primary, Trump predicts the people of Utah will shun “Lying” Ted Cruz because “Mormons hate liars!” Utah responds by handing Lying Ted all its delegates in an avalanche of apparent support for mendacity!
  • March 22: Trump counter punches by sweeping Arizona with more delegates than Utah—and that’s no lie.
  • March 22: Hillary prevails in Arizona’s primary, whereas feisty old Bernie grabs Utah and Idaho. Maybe Donald was wrong and Mormons just don’t like Clintons.
  • March 23: With exquisite RINO timing, Jeb Bush endorses Ted Cruz. Can we slap you now, Jeb?
  • March 23, several Barker Street Irregulars in positions to know begin telling WOOF that Hillary is on the verge of being indicted and FBI boss James Comey told Loretta Lynch he’ll walk out with most of his staff if action is not sanctioned…we cannot confirm this, and our prophylactic pessimism restrains us from believing it, but we sure keep hearing it.
  • March 24: Ted Cruz takes Texican values to Manhattan’s posh 3 West Club where he sensibly advised New Yorkers to quit electing progressives whose “liberal, left-wing values” denied New Yorkers 16-ounce sodas and baby bottles, drove away business, and sent crime rates soaring. He also made fun of Comrade Bill de Blasio whose consternation was marvelous to behold.
  • March 25, Hillary tells Jimmy Kimmel that when elected she will open the files on Area 51 to all Americans, unless national security dictates otherwise, which of course it will. Kimmel shares the common belief that crashed saucers and pickled aliens are hidden there. The UFO party last ran a candidate in 1972 when saucer buff Gabriel Green lost to Richard Nixon. Some see Clinton’s remarks as intended to enlist Green’s old base, but WOOF sees them as ridiculous. Everyone knows they took all the alien stuff to Wright Patterson decades ago!
  • March 25: The senior House Republican leadership predicts the coming of President Paul Ryan,(who doesn’t want the job, wink, wink) The way the RINOs tell it, Ryan’s nomination is practically inevitable. Sorting through the leadership’s vast outpouring of magical thinking on this subject, we were unable to isolate a single instance in which anybody made sense.
  • March 26:-The National Enquirer claims Ted Cruz had affairs with “a hooker, a teacher, and [several] coworkers ” We won’t believe it, of course, until we hear it from Drudge– but the ooze is spreading.
  • March 28: John Kasich announces he is going to walk away with the Pennsylvania primary…and because it’s always fun to close with a joke, here’s this:

As March marches away…

lindsey againUnwilling to wait for April 1 to tender further proofs of foolishness, Lindsey Graham announced that despite his endorsement of Jeb Bush, (now moribund) and his subsequent endorsement of Ted Cruz, he believes John Kasich would be a much better nominee– except, he says, Kasich can’t win—which sounds like a not-so-good nominee. Graham next told MSNBC  “I think Ted would make it a competitive race,” which seems supportive enough, except when Joe Scarborough asked him “Would [Cruz] make a good president?” Lindsey replied, “No, I don’t think so.” But not to worry! By way of clarifying his sentiments, Senator Graham subsequently announced that any misinterpretation of his comments as inconsistent might as well be dismissed from mind inasmuch as “The GOP will probably lose in 2016.”  One of those misguided news sources that accused Lindsey of inconsistency is a charmingly heterodox blog called FITS News. FITS takes the understandable position that “LINDSEY GRAHAM IS CONFUSED…” but with all due respect, FITS is overthinking the matter. Trust us on this one, gentle readers: Lindsey Graham is not confused. He’s an idiot. WOOF PRINT



WOOF’s NEW YEAR’S Resolutions for 2016!

In "You say you want a resolution?" forum on January 31, 2016 at 5:26 pm

new years puppy

We know—the first resolution you think we should make is to stop procrastinating, right? That way we wouldn’t be coming up with our New Year’s resolutions in February. But hey, it just wouldn’t be WOOFlike for us to be on time with stuff, would it? So we say: better a late list of resolutions than none at all. Besides, didn’t G. K. Chesterton tell us that if a thing is worth doing, it’s worth doing badly? We would add “or late!” except the whole idea of the Chestertonian inversion would be compromised by the codicillary sentiment ….so…maybe our first resolution should be to stop digressing so much. Except that, too, strikes us as unWOOFlike.

Our Trillion-Dollar Coin: Victim of inflation!

Our Trillion-Dollar Coin: just another victim of inflation!

We may even resolve never to do New Year’s resolutions again, because we have the firm presentiment that they aren’t likely to turn out to be click magnets—but as longtime WOOFketeers know, we have a positive genius for avoiding potentially popular ideas, electing instead to post stuff like—well—like our New Year’s resolutions. Or take the time we posted that list of cities you could go to in the event of an atomic attack because they are nuclear free zones, remember? And our article extolling the virtues of the trillion-dollar coin, how about that one? Looks like it didn’t catch on. Even Paul Krugman stopped advocating the idea….possibly because the debt is now 19 trillion, so we’d need a lot more coins. Of course, as Stan Collender of FORBES suggests, we could resolve to stop worrying about the national debt altogether, but Mr. Collender’s argument for this is based on a policy recommended by the IMF, so we are actually even more worried…we could always do an article about the advisability of minting a 20-trillion dollar coin, but we’d have to design a whole new coin and the artwork for the last one took longer than the article took to write. Anyway, our point is, we obviously aren’t trolling for clicks here, (And if you see ads, it’s because WordPress sticks them in occasionally, not us. We don’t mind, though—we’re glad they’re thinking of us.)

Blame Paul Ryan!

blame paul ryanBut Paul Ryan is really to blame. To blame for us doing this, that is, because what got us thinking about the idea was when he posted his resolutions for 2016—did you happen to catch those? He resolved to spend 2016 advancing the “Conservative Agenda,” advocating for “unity,” fighting for “decentralized power,” ensuring “transparency and regular order,” “culture change,” and a couple of other ideas so linguistically ambiguous that we forgot them. And in fairness to Ryan, he resolved to do all this stuff during 2016, so the fact that he broke just about every single resolution before 2016 might not count. Breitbart, for instance, insists that “Ryan’s “$1.1 trillion, two-thousand-plus-page-long omnibus spending bill alone broke most of these promises,” while ramming “Obamatrade” through by resurrecting the internationalist monstrosity in the wake of its presumed demise and hustling it through on the sneak pretty much wiped out anything that was left of conservatism or transparency. For all we know, Ryan may have just been getting all the squishy RINO accommodationism out of his system before buckling down in 2016 and swapping his perfidious ways for a sense of studious conservative punctilio—but we doubt it. Besides, the speaker’s zest for breaking all his resolutions before the New Year even got here gives us heart. Obviously, nobody expects New Years resolutions to be kept—or, put in terms our RINO critics will understand, they are clearly non-binding! So don’t hold us to any of these—because we probably won’t get around to most of them!


Papal Bull/Royal Pain?

First, we resolve to find out what the Pope and the Queen really said this Christmas! They’re more important than Paul Ryan, aren’t they? And you’d think that when they say or don’t say something, it would be pretty simple to nail down—but no! Followers of Pope Francis and Her Majesty were traumatically frazzled this New Year when both dignitaries reportedly proclaimed 2016 the last year for civilization as we know it. The eerie synchronization of their respective prophecies seemed especially chilling. We know for a fact that Francis told his audience this Christmas that the holiday was a charade. We read it at Salon, so it must be true. But from a wide variety of additional websites we learned the Pontiff also insisted that the world’s present situation presages the “end times,” that the world will probably be unrecognizable before 2016 concludes. His Holiness added that Christmas 2015 “for those who choose to celebrate it, may be their last.” Hard to get happy after that one!


“…a tough year…!”

Francis seems as dispirited by the situation within the Vatican as beyond its gates. Less than a year ago he chastised the Holy City’s establishment severely, openly denouncing the institution’s lack of Godliness and insisting that the Curia was plagued by fifteen “spiritual illnesses,” including “a lust for power and wealth,” which seems predictable given the whole Genesis narrative, doesn’t it? But he also diagnosed many constituents of the Holy See as afflicted with “spiritual Alzheimer’s,” which sounds pretty serious. His Holiness also enumerated the thirteen remaining spiritual illnesses, but we can’t remember their names at the moment. You can find all of this on several reputable Catholic websites, but when it comes to the whole doomsday business, not much is available. Church related sites such as CRUX make no mention of Francis’s gloomy prognostications over the holidays, noting simply that “2015 has been a rough year for Pope Francis.”

Seriously, would an Irishman make stuff up?

Seriously, would an Irishman make stuff up?

There are those, of course, who predicted a rough papacy for Francis from the get-go, insisting that his appointment fulfills the prophecy of the Irish Saint Malachy, the 12th century bishop of Armagh. Malachy supposedly had a vision and listed the popes in order of succession, Peter the Roman comes after Benedict (the previous pope) and, according to Malachy (whom we tend to consider credible because he’s Irish) this final pope will “feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End.” And yes, we know, Francis’s name is Francis, not Peter, and he’s from Argentina, not Rome—so what was Malachy thinking? WOOF’s crackerjack researchers went to work investigating the proposed connection, but the best they could discover is that a) Francis’s parents were from Italy, and that b) Saint Francis, from whom Pope Francis took his papal name, was originally named Pietro. If that seems a bit thin, add to the mix that some scallywags are now bruiting it about that St. Malachy’s prophecies are fakes, so maybe the Pope is worried over nothing.

Raving– the Queen?

Does the Angela Kelly original split-crown blue hat with upturned brim rest uneasily on the royal brow?

Does the blue Angela Kelly original split-crown hat, with upturned brim, rest uneasily upon the royal brow?

Meanwhile, there’s the whole Queen Elizabeth II imbroglio, and this one’s even more mysterious! During Her Majesty’s traditional Christmas message, broadcast each yuletide to her adoring subjects over the BBC, Elizabeth allegedly lost her grip and rambled on prolongedly about a number of unsettling things. First, the Queen is reported to have vented her concern that “malevolent forces, much stronger than our own, are stalking across Europe, gaining ground every day,” (and this according to various news sources including Breitbart’s Before It’s News and yournewswire.com.) after which she reportedly said of Princess Diana, “she knew too much.” Finally, a distraught and haunted sovereign sighed, “I hope you enjoy your final Christmas,” while BBC technicians raced to pull the plug on the broadcast and implored Her Majesty to rethink her premise over a restful break and a nice restorative cup of Earl Grey.

According to BBC insiders (according, again, to various unnamed sources) Elizabeth was persuaded to do a re-take later in the afternoon, and delivered a far more conventional and uplifting message. This is the message that the British people viewed on Christmas, and the truth about her initial rant is known only because certain BBC technicians and producers leaked the story. WOOF resolves to search tirelessly for these unidentified BBC employees, since Buckingham Palace is not responding to our enquiries, and the BBC never responds to our enquiries. Regardless, we firmly resolve to uncover the truth behind the Pope’s and the Queen’s predictions before…well…before next Christmas, anyway.

Whatever the truth turns out to be, we're not backing off the pale green horseman of death who galloped through Tahrir Square during the whole "Arab Spring" fiasco-- that was weird!

Whatever the truth turns out to be, we’re not backing off the pale green horseman of death who galloped through Tahrir Square in Cairo during the “Arab Spring” fiasco– that was weird!



redditThat’s right, we here in the WOOF cave have concluded that mean people suck, and we’ve had enough of them—and not just on Reddit! (Shall we go there again? Have we mentioned lately that we’re banned from the Conservative forum on Reddit? Probably not for a while now—not since it happened a couple of years ago, but back then we had not evolved on this issue). Back then we didn’t realize that banning us was a microaggression. Since then, our horizons have broadened—and we see things now as they truly are. And those microaggressors who assail us on all the other Reddit forums that haven’t banned us yet better watch out too—and you oppressive fascists on Twitter who don’t like our tweets—and all those angry haters who send us uncomplimentary emails here at WOOF—you know who you are! Be warned, because we are drawing fresh inspiration in the coming year from the faculty and administration of Penn State where president Eric Barron recently announced that “There is no place for hate, overt or subtle,” while Lisa Powers, director of Penn State’s strategic communications office (which sounds fairly important, we think), added that “An act of intolerance can be identified as any forms [sic] of microaggressions, verbal assaults, and/or racial subjugation.”

President Barren is often observed pondering the weighty conundra of existence!

Penn’s President Barren is often observed pondering the weightiest conundra of existence–like, you know, homophobia, and stuff like that!

WOOF was previously unaware that racial subjugation was being practiced at Penn State, but we are one-hundred percent in favor of ending it promptly! And the panjandra of higher learning at Penn are obviously no less committed, having swung into action against microaggressiveness by printing thousands of posters and boldly issuing a whole bunch of refrigerator magnets asking students to report utterances or activities that do not match what President Barron calls “our mutually held values.” The student body at Penn is asked to remain vigilant for signs of “homophobia, prejudice, hostility, bullying, defamation, intolerance, inequity, cultural appropriation” and many other similar barbarities.

Don’t become culturally appropriated–fight back!

calvin is capturedSome of our readers may not know how to spot a microaggression—do not be discouraged! We ourselves were unfamiliar with the signs of microaggressiveness until we educated ourselves. According to the Penn State course Subtle Slights: Understanding the Impact of Unconscious Bias and Microaggressions, microaggressions are “unspoken, often unrecognized ‘little things’ that foster sentiments and attitudes of inequity and incivility.” Students are encouraged to report any observed incidents to the Office of the Vice Provost for Educational Equity. We think everybody should help out, and we resolve to report any microaggressions to which we are subjected immediately! By the way, the Vice Provost’s number is (814) 865-5906. Why let the students and faculty of Penn State fight this battle alone? Remember, if you are microaggressed against, dial 1-814-865-5906, or go to the website at http://equity.psu.edu/reportbias and submit a form! As President Barron so perspicuously puts it, “Be the difference!” Save our mutually held values! Dime on a microaggressor today!



WOOF RESOLVES to stop faking celebrity deaths!

annetteWell, that’s not exactly correct. We didn’t really fake a celebrity death, we just thought we did for a few minutes. As emails poured into the WOOF cave (all right, to be perfectly honest for once, two emails actually poured in) accusing us of having faked the death of Annette Funicello in 2013 as part of a twisted plot to associate it cosmically with the passing of Margaret Thatcher that year, as indeed we did (see the original piece here). We confess we became increasingly concerned as we reviewed news sources confirming that Funicello followed David Bowie into the aether during early January of this year. Yipes, did we hallucinate the entire event back in 2013? For a horrendous moment we doubted our rationality (can you imagine?) especially as the super-reliable Woofette who was checking news sources insisted that indeed, Miss Funicello had just died–the news was everywhere.

We were relieved, finally, to uncover an INQUISITOR piece entitled: “For Some Reason, Everyone Thinks Annette Funicello just Died Again” which immediately put us at ease. According to the INQUISITOR, the whole thing started when a site called Health Cure Portal announced Annette’s death, stating she had “lost her long battle to multiple sclerosis,” which was true, but which they neglected to point out had been true since 2013 when WOOF originally reported the fact in our article entitled “And so she passed out of our lives forever,” which is the very favorite of all our articles of at least two of our esteemed writer/editors–which is one reason we were loath to reconsider its premise!

From our April, 2014 article on the synchronistic passings of both ladies. Dame Thatcher, however, remained dead,

From our April, 2013 article on the synchronistic passings of Annette and Dame Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher, however, remained dead.

PEOPLE with Annette

Plagiarized! Boy, talk about recycling unneeded paper products!

The INQUISITOR went on to detail other web sources that jumped on the rumor of Annette’s second passing. Apparently in each case, and at each site, the ex-Mouseketeer’s obituary was copied exactly from a People magazine article that correctly marked Funicello’s passing three years ago—but when reproduced without context, seemed to indicate that she had just expired. Checking further, we determined that most of the major news sites reporting Annette’s (second) death were attributing it to the website Health of Women where we discovered another verbatim duplication of the old People piece, except dated January 1, 2016. Say—maybe we’re wasting our time with this originality stuff!?

images To add insult to injury, when we told Tech Elf Noah (our resident teenage cyber-genius) about the whole brouhaha the next day, thinking to amuse him, his only comment was, “Why didn’t you tweet your original story with the real date of her death to all those twitterers who thought she just died?” And we all exclaimed, “Oh! We should’ve done that?” Sometimes we’re just too hopelessly dense for Tech Elf Noah to bear. But if we took all his advice, we might become popular, and we wouldn’t know what to do with ourselves.

So anyway, from Annette’s second embrace of the great mystery, we derived the following solemn new-year’s resolutions:
• Here at WOOF we will only allow people to die once, and only then if we deem it unavoidable.
• When people we deem to have died once die twice, we will “tweet” our objections, especially if it “promotes clicks” as Tech Elf Noah likes to say…
• We will never plagiarize a People magazine article, even though doing so seems to make sites instantly newsworthy, and finally…
• (Codicil) If by any chance David Bowie dies again, we will suspend the above resolutions and simply report the redundancy as authentic, because we’re pretty sure where David is concerned that could actually happen.

Which reminds us...OUR copy of 'The Man Who Sold the World' LP just has a stupid cartoon cowboy on it! And now it's too late to complain!

Which reminds us:  OUR copy of Bowie’s ‘The Man Who Sold the World’ LP just has a stupid cartoon cowboy on the dust sleeve! And now it’s too late to complain!?


‘Till we have Facebook….

"Coincidences may be spiritual puns, but not all puns are spiritual!"

“Coincidences may be spiritual puns, but not all puns are spiritual!”

In related news: WOOF resolves not to start a Facebook page again this year! January marks the beginning of the 4th year of WOOF’s existence as a website, or “blog,” and thus it concurrently marks the 4th year that everybody who knows anything about cyberspacial stuff has gone out of his or her way to persuade us that we absolutely must have a Facebook page to go with our website. But nobody has ever explained to us in a manner we could comprehend why this is so. Besides, with the exception of a Woofette or two, none of us likes Facebook. The reason we never allow “likes” of our articles is because we are unanimously appalled by social networking that allows 78 people to “like” it when some narcissist reports, say, having Eggs Benedict for brunch. So resolved: no Facebook page in 2016! Of course we once firmly resolved not to be on Twitter either, whereas Tech Elf Noah now tells us we have almost two-thousand followers, which he says is “pretty good.”  So you never know.


We resolve to BUY MORE GUNS! 

President Obama’s recent blatherings should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that during his disastrous final year in office he will do everything within his power to shred the 2nd Amendment, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch is clearly on board to vouchsafe the constitutionality of any caprice the First Marxist decides to couch as an executive order. We at WOOF are not, at this point, sufficiently alarmist to advocate procuring additional weapons in the face of an impending gun ban—but that doesn’t mean we don’t advocate buying more guns. The more guns sold, the more gun owners and enthusiasts we cultivate, and the better prepared becomes the “militia,” meaning, as George Mason defined it, “the whole people” to quash any authoritarian salients Our Beloved Helmsman may concoct during what WOOF likes to call the “year of the wounded duck.”

ob mages

Thanks, Obama!

Remember whenever you find yourself waxing critical of our young president, that no matter what else one can say about his tenure, he has almost single handedly succeeded in increasing the sale of guns in this country by an impressive 150% while doubling production by American gun manufacturers —and it would be churlish to allow his exertions to go unheralded. Buying guns in 2016 may be the perfect way to say ‘thank you, Mr. Obama!’ After all, according to no less an authority on liberal irrationality than the Washington Post, President Obama has given the gun and ammunition industries a nine-to-ten-billion-dollar boost, and say, we bet there are some Ruger or Smith & Wesson shares tucked away in the presidential portfolio—though like everything else about history’s most transparent president, such details remain tightly sealed.


More and more Americans are giving up their gas guzzlers for the freedom of mass transit! (And it helps them prepare for future medical appointments under Obamacare, too!)

More and more Americans are giving up their gas guzzlers for the freedom of mass transit! (And it helps them prepare for future medical appointments under Obamacare, too!)

RESOLVED—we will help President Obama with the economy by cutting back on stuff we can’t have as much as we want of, except vacations, which we will take more of, but not to Las Vegas–unless other countries object—or—okay, this is a hard one to get a handle on. We know from the President’s speeches about American consumerism that Americans can’t have everything they want. We vividly recall him telling us specifically that “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,–because that’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.” We were somewhat confused by his syntax at the time, and now that Judicial Watch has released the news that the Obamas spent eight million dollars on just one vacation to Hawaii two years ago, we are genuinely adrift. That must have been leadership, because it definitely did happen, right?


The unruffled serenity of the totalitarian mind: The Obster and Mao refresh themselves between travesties. At least Mao wrote a poem while he was paddling.

Add to this the fact that the Obamas spent $470,000 a day during their most recent junket to Hawaii, and that Americans shelled out over $50 million for the seven winter vacations taken by the first family to date and it becomes almost impossible to know when to cut back and when to splurge. If we keep our SUVs in the garage and turn our thermostats down, it is presumably all right to spend wildly on our vacations—because after all, we won’t care what our thermostats at home are set to if we’re in Hawaii—but we still don’t think we should go to Las Vegas.

Leaving Las Vegas