October 30, 2015

The mind behind the current Captain America

Check out this tweet:



Anyone -- ANYONE -- who doesn't believe that anything associated with NBC News is left-leaning is so full of self-delusion and reality denial as to defy description.

And this is who Marvel is hiring these days.

Posted by Hube at 04:37 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 29, 2015

Still missing the point about 'Captain America'

New Captain America scribe Nick Spencer tweeted out the following yesterday:



Well, duh. Because he agrees with you.

But the article's author, Brett White, like Spencer is missing the point. (And they're doing it on purpose, too.) I won't bore you again with the reasons why -- you know why by now.

I'll merely point to this post, this one, and this one.

Lastly, the article notes that yeah, the writer has a left-wing point of view. Gee, thanks. Now, show me the last Cap story with a distinctly right-wing bent.

Posted by Hube at 05:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The difference between the early 70s and now

The GOP actually joined with Democrats regarding the impeachment of Dick Nixon.

Now? The Dems slam the move to impeach the arrogant and sniveling IRS commissioner.

“Calling this resolution a ‘stunt’ or a ‘joke’ would be insulting to stunts and jokes,” Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.) the committee’s top Democrat, said in a statement. He said the impeachment resolution was “ridiculous” and a waste of taxpayer money.

“Instead of squandering millions of taxpayer dollars on baseless partisan attacks,” Cumming said, “the committee should focus on issues that matter to all Americans, like bringing down the costs of prescription drugs, as I have requested for the past year with no success.”

Of course, Cummings not only tried "to obstruct the investigation into the IRS for targeting conservatives, his office took part in the targeting."

This is the way things are, now. No one at the State Dept. has been held accountable for anything Benghazi-related, but the maker of that supposedly "riot-inciting" video is in custody.

Dinesh D'Souza does jail time while Lois Lerner gets off scot-free.

If Hillary is elected, does anyone think this will get any better?

Posted by Hube at 04:54 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Why why why does the GOP continue to agree to debate with idiot moderators like CNBC's?

Just look at this montage from last night's debate. Does ANYONE in their right minds think the Democrats would be subjected to such nonsense?

Posted by Hube at 04:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 28, 2015

God bless Australia

This is the most Australian story ever.

Posted by Duffy at 03:33 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 27, 2015

Quote of the Day

"Lois Lerner is free. Kim Davis was imprisoned. Hillary is free. Filmmaker is in prison." -- John Nolte

Posted by Hube at 05:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Writer of 'Captain America' once worked for Democratic pol

This shouldn't surprise anyone.

Nick Spencer also ran unsuccessfully for Cincinnati City Council (twice). In addition, he was accused of "not upholding his end of the bargain" regarding a dispute over ownership of his (now-former) bar, including "paying his rent and mismanaging the bar’s finances."

Just so you know the mind-set of the guy who is now having the pages of Capt. America denounce those who are against illegal immigration.

Oh, and here's still more from just the other day:





(h/t to FCMM)

Posted by Hube at 04:50 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 26, 2015

Dan Slott gets caught -- blames 'those with agenda,' Internet

From the guy who constantly moans about having so much work to do, ya'd think he'd get off the Internets for long stretches at a time, eh?

But no, he is so obsessed with what people think of him that he has to scour the Intertubes looking for any and all criticisms ... and if he can't make them go away, he'll make stuff up.

Case in point: Doug Ernst nailed Slott on his comments about Peter Parker -- how his love is more superficial than that, of all people, Dr. Octopus:

... when you read all the Otto Octavius stories of his background, of his growing up, of who he was — and even as Dock Ock — all the women he falls in love with, he sees them for who they are inside.

Look at Stunner. Look at all these, like, nerdy girls he was dating as Otto. I think that’s something Otto does something better than Peter. He sees people who are truly beautiful and loves them for that.

And you look at everyone Peter has fallen in love with, and every single one of them is superficially beautiful on the outside. And the reason for that is they’re all created by John Romita Sr., who drew everyone woman beautiful.

What guy wouldn’t fall for Gwen Stacy or Mary Jane? Or even if he falls in love with like a Deb Whitman, yeah, she’s the girl with glasses, but she’s the girl with glasses who can suddenly take off her glasses and whip out the hair.

Everyone Peter falls in love with is so classically beautiful, and to me that is anti-Marvel.

Here is the actual video, too, so you can see for yourself.

But Slott, the little obsessed gnome that he is, says Doug (without mentioning him by name, natch) took him "out of context." But of course!

The frustration of being in the public eye (even in a small pond) is everything you do or say gets scrutinized, pulled out of context, and twisted by those with an agenda.

Oy.

In a video from a convention in January I talked about two or three different characters from the Spider-Man supporting cast being designed/drawn as being "superficially beautiful on the outside". That was talking about the characters' external appearance ONLY-- and NOT about them being superficial on the inside as well.

Gwen (as drawn by Steve Ditko and later by John Romita Sr.) and MJ (as drawn by JR SR.-- Ditko only drew her obscured by a vase) were both classically beautiful characters. They practically walked off the covers of the Romance comics of the day.

It's pretty much stating the obvious when you posit that "it's easy to see why Peter Parker would be attracted to them at first sight".

That's NOT saying that their characters WEREN'T well written or that they DIDN'T have depth.

The lengths people will go to bend, distort, or twist what you say-- because you made Black Cat evil, or you worked on Brand New Day, or you "killed" Peter Parker (for 30 issues before he came back) will never cease to amaze me. :-P

Internet, you just go on being the internet. You're adorable.

This, from a guy who routinely tweets and retweets political stuff that really takes words and meanings out of context.

Read Slott's own words on this, and watch the video. You decide if Ernst "bent," "distorted" or "twisted" Slott's words. For me, it's rather easy to conclude exactly what Ernst did. Again, based on Slott's own words.

Posted by Hube at 07:11 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 21, 2015

As the comics creators go nuts justifying their biases ...

... just remember the following:

Yeah, that's Marvel bigwig Tom Brevoort saying they "probably" wouldn't allow Frank Miller to do a Captain America tale a la his Holy Terror story.

Cap can, however, go after the Tea Party and put forth messages that being against illegal immigration is racist/hateful/xenophobic/outoftouch ... but battle radical Islamic terrorists? INSENSITIVE! INTOLERANT!

And this from Grant Morrison on the Miller work:

Batman vs. Al Qaeda! It might as well be Bin Laden vs. King Kong! Or how about the sinister Al Qaeda mastermind up against a hungry Hannibal Lecter! For all the good it's likely to do. Cheering on a fictional character as he beats up fictionalized terrorists seems like a decadent indulgence when real terrorists are killing real people in the real world. I'd be so much more impressed if Frank Miller gave up all this graphic novel nonsense, joined the Army and, with a howl of undying hate, rushed headlong onto the front lines with the young soldiers who are actually risking life and limb 'vs.' Al Qaeda.

I'd be impressed if Morrison bought a pricey mansion along the US-Mexico border with no fences or other means of security. Or spoke out against the government so that he'd become targeted by the IRS (or whatever state enforcement arm). Or had his healthcare premiums skyrocket after being outright lied to by the chief exec. Or ...

But comics creators at large didn't have to be that vocal about Miller's anti-al Qaeda work, because the innumerable media voices did it for them:

Newsarama: “[Holy Terror] doesn't look at the villains in any way or explore the differences between Muslims and terrorists "a mean and ugly book.”

Robot 6: “ ... the work of someone who was profoundly affected by the events of September 11th, to the point where fear took over from whatever artistic drive used to push [his] work."

Wired: "Fodder for the anti-Islam set."

Comics Alliance: "The slurs against Islam continue as the book goes on ..."

USA Today: "winds up buried under its one-dimensional barrage of patriotism ... the rah-rah enthusiasm for wasting terrorists so nastily would seem more fitting or even a cathartic experience for some."

ComicBookMovie.com: "probably the most ridiculous, shallow, offensive piece of propaganda I think I’ve ever read."

Think Progress: "noxious politics ... viciously Islamophobic sentiments ... twisted thinking."

Las Vegas Weekly: "... in service of an ugly story and uglier politics."

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "a nasty, though visually arresting expression of xenophobic rage against Muslims ... conflates all Muslims with terrorists with a racist gusto."

So, comics have always involved politics, the contemporary creators say? Sure, but now and for many years, the tales have had to be of the "right kind." That trashing radical Islamists is "racist," "noxious," and "ugly," while going after the Tea Party and utilizing a long-time racist group as the voice for a very legitimate and popular political point of view, shows just how far "progressives" and the Democrat Party has fallen.

Posted by Hube at 05:03 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

In other comics (creator) news

... check out this thread to see how Kurt Busiek's grasp of history and political labels is quite wanting.

Oh, speaking wanting, if you can bear it read the risible Amanda Marcotte's take on the current Cap controversy. (As if she is familiar with Cap's history!)

Posted by Hube at 04:48 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

I prefer anti-Semites, thank you very much

Our pal Ron Marz tweets:



He might say "Sorry, dear, but I prefer listening to sickening anti-Semites":



Background here.

Posted by Hube at 04:45 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 20, 2015

Uh huh. Right.

Idiot Dan Slott wants to play a game:



This is regarding the controversial Capt. America storyline recently covered here and here.

I can play a game too:

1) If it was just Sam (as in Wilson, as in the former Falcon, as in a black guy) then why the f*** were conservatives upset when Bucky Barnes-as-Cap went after the Tea Party? (Bucky's white.)

2) Using that "logic," then Slott's pal Ron Marz said the following ... just because it's Ben Carson:



Remember, just because these dopes write marginally popular funny books doesn't mean they're actually smart.

Posted by Hube at 06:46 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

i09 writer completely misses the point about the Cap and illegal immigration story

James Whitbrook swings and fans -- completely -- in his criticism of the critics of the latest Captain America yarn where we're supposed to feel guilty if we're actually against illegal immigration.

Part of this is down to the bristling idea that superhero comics shouldn’t—and, bizarrely enough, can’t—feature commentary on current social issues. That, to some people, superhero comics are meant to be for young kids, and because they deal with people in spandex punching people in spandex, they should be sequestered off in a land of magic pixie dust, not rooted in our own world.

Is it political? Of course it is. It’s what Captain America as a character has been like since his creation. Like I mentioned, in his first appearance, he punched a goddamn fascist in the face.

But the other part of it is an alleged shock that a dude running around calling himself Captain America and fighting for the little guy might have some left-leaning ideals. The main furor that burst forth this weekend over Sam Wilson: Captain America #1 has been very much from sites that Spencer and Acuña lampoon in the issue itself: That somehow, by choosing to not be a mouthpiece of the Government or SHIELD and stand solely for the American people, Sam is now “Anti-American.”

"Fighting for the little guy?" What about the little guys who are miffed about the politicos who could care less about unabated immigration, especially those along the southern border who bear the brunt of it, with all that entails? Why doesn't Wilson stand up for them?

Whitbrook and innumerable commenters at the article scream about how Cap is "political" because his first cover had him punching Hitler in the face. As if a genocidal fascist and lawful immigration concerns of millions of Americans are on the same level?? Seriously? Is that where we're at now?

Conservatives aren't upset that Cap is "suddenly political" as Whitbrook and others would have you believe -- it's the continuation of the politics that superheroes champion ... as we've detailed here quite often.

The author mentions Cap's "Secret Empire" tale; as I wrote over two years ago, "I wonder if any comics writers out there would be brave enough to have Capt. America fight the Secret Empire again ... but this time with Barack Obama as Number One?" The crimes for which Richard Nixon would have been impeached arguably pale in comparison to some of the things we see today; however, because the media, in its myriad forms, likes and approves of Barack Obama -- while it hated Nixon -- don't hold your breath waiting to see Boss Obama as the new Number One.

Also as we've written here at Colossus, conservatives and the very concept of patriotism are routinely lampooned in comics' panels. In Captain America itself, the Cap of the 1950s was shown to be a mentally unstable loose cannon -- so much so that his virulent 1950s anti-Communism led to unveiled racism in the 1970s.

In the 1980s one of Cap's replacements was John Walker, formerly the Super Patriot. He too was portrayed as a psychotic, with even a panel in an issue of West Coast Avengers showing him mumbling to himself ... and the Avengers who are listening in are freaked out about it.

l love, also, how Whitbrook ponders conservatives being upset that Cap wouldn't represent the federal government. Why would conservatives be miffed that Cap doesn't want to be the "mouthpiece" for the feds ... or SHIELD? Are not conservatives inherently distrustful of government?

Perhaps the most laughable aspect of this whole thing is how "progressives" are pooh-poohing the very notion of why wouldn't Cap get political and go after people who are breaking the law (who, ironically, are trying to stop people from breaking the law) ... because these are the very same folks who were upset that Batman was going to go after Islamic terrorists! That's right -- as the LA Times reported, DC insiders were wary of the political concept behind what eventually would become Holy Terror ... sans the Caped Crusader.

Cap can punch Hitler in the nose, but Batman can't off radical Islamic killers. This is the politics of contemporary comics ... and this what pisses off conservatives.

Posted by Hube at 05:50 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 16, 2015

The new Capt. America protects us from 'Sons of the Trump'

Actually, it's the Sons of the Serpent, a long mainstay baddie organization in Marvel Comics lore. But this time, being it's 2015, and that Marvel, among other comic companies, has been co-opted by elitist I-know-better-than-you "progressives," the Sons of the Serpent supposedly fill in for ... Donald Trump.

As Chuck Ross reports, Captain America: Sam Wilson #1 has the villains around the US-Mexico border hassling illegals attempting to make their way into the US.

So what does Cap do? Flies in and busts some Serpent heads. (Cap is now Sam Wilson, the former Falcon, the original Cap's longtime partner.)

Which, in the whole scheme of things, makes perfect sense. Again, the SotS has a loooooong history of making trouble in the Marvel Universe, and this is no exception. Historically, they're white supremacist nasties with whom the Avengers, to name one, have dealt several times.

But writer Nick Spencer -- like way too many other creators these days -- doesn't even try to be subtle. He's trying to link -- make -- The Donald (to) these thugs, and in the process totally invalidate arguments against illegal immigration.

Don't believe me? Check it:



Ironically, one of the tales in which the Serpents were featured involves the Avengers trying to untangle a plot in which it's revealed that the SotS was taken over by a duo of power hungry nutjobs -- one white dude (Dan Dunn) ... and one black guy (Montague Hale). (See: Avengers #73 and 74.) The two conspired to ignite a race war in the US.

(Quick aside -- jump to present day: Trump blasts illegals from Mexico as criminals; on the other hand, Democratic candidates get chided and protested for daring to say "all lives matter" instead of "black lives matter" ... the Serpents' Dunn and Hale would indeed be proud to see their work continued. The difference being, of course, that only the former gets grief from the popular media.)

But hey, that was back when Marvel actually attempted to be even-handed politically, or when dealing with issues of civil rights (which the pages of The Avengers and Captain America did quite often in the 1960s-70s), it was pretty straightforward stuff with which any decent American couldn't argue. Basic human and civil rights for blacks and other minority Americans? Women? The writers back then handled the delicate political topics expertly.

The problem with Spencer and his contemporary peers is that they take their far-left politics and inject them into the characters we all know and love, and in the process belittle the very legitimate political concerns of a huge number of Americans. Anyone remember when Cap and the Falcon went after the Tea Party?

Illegal immigration is a hot political topic, and a quite legitimate one. But Spencer would reduce the discussion to one that is completely black and white (no pun intended): Wanting to prevent illegal immigration, and/or enacting common sense methods to reduce it are xenophobic and racist. Period. You're no better than the Sons of the Serpent, for cryin' out loud ... and neither is the current Republican front-runner.

I'd say it's insulting and beyond boring, but it's way past that point now. With the current crop of creators that infest the industry today, I'll continue to wait for printed comics' slow, agonizing death.

Posted by Hube at 05:40 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

ObumbleCare's IRS may be coming after YOU!

Via Twitchy:


Isn't just great how ObumbleCare was passed with such overwhelming public and bipartisan support??

Posted by Hube at 04:36 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 14, 2015

Life in the Bubble

Here's 'ol Dan Slott tweeting from his idyllic existence inside the "progressive" bubble:



And just in case you can't figure out which is which in his (stunted) cerebrum:



The only serious candidate on the stage at last night's Democrat debate was Jim Webb; unfortunately, his Democratic Party was whisked away after JFK and Johnson held office.

After all, to the quartet outside of Webb, climate change is the nation's greatest threat, and the Russian people will bottle up Vlad Putin. Not to mention, what threat from Iran and ISIS?

Enjoy that comfy, alternate reality Bubble Danny.

Posted by Hube at 11:45 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Racism, straight up

Here's our 'ol pal Ron Marz engaging in racism (hey, simply using his and his philosophy's very own playbook):


Posted by Hube at 11:30 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 13, 2015

Debating the 'Star Trek' economy

Economists Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong debated aspects of the hypothetical economy of the Star Trek universe at the New York Comic Con this past Sunday.

“I would argue there’s a dark side to the abundance there,” said Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning Princeton University economist and New York Times columnist.

One conundrum: While the “replicators” of “Star Trek’s” future may be able to produce all the food, clothing and other material goods everyone would need, they wouldn’t be able to provide vital services. Probably robots or some other form of artificial intelligence would do that. But if those servitors are sophisticated and intelligent enough for the wide variety of those tasks, aren’t they really sentient beings, and wouldn’t we be enslaving them?

“A world in which you have servitors that give you everything you want is a world in which it’s very hard to tell the difference between those servitors and slaves,” Krugman said.

Krugman is touching on (perhaps not knowingly) the ST: The Next Generation episode "The Measure of a Man" where it was debated whether Commander Data was a machine or a sentient being with the same rights as everyone else.

In my view, if we develop the technology to make replicators, it's fairly safe to assume that robot-assisted medical technology will be around too -- and by "robot" I don't mean something with the self-awareness of Data.

DeLong says that in Trek society,"people wouldn’t work because they needed to, but because they wanted to." Which is accurate -- in the TNG episode "The Neutral Zone," Picard lectures a thawed-out late-20th century business mogul on how, since material needs are no longer an issue, people strive to "better themselves." Indeed, service in Starfleet seems to be just that.

However, I don't see a substantial number of people willingly putting their lives on the line in the service of Starfleet (granted, it's not an actual military organization, but is equipped to serve as such -- and has to, at times) if they have just about anything they desire for continued leisure right at their fingertips.

Author Manu Saadia says that the "ultra-achieving" one percent is what we see on Star Trek, adding Starfleet would be "a strict meritocracy, 'extremely harsh and cutthroat.'” There is some basis for that assessment; in TNG's "Coming of Age," we see the sort of character testing that would get a company sued for workmen's comp or other injuries/psychological damage today.

It's true that there would be people who would quickly bore of such endless excess relaxation and might want to join up and explore the universe, but really -- would you ... if you could just spend all day in a holodeck with a replicator??

Posted by Hube at 04:39 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 10, 2015

Narrative

Posted by Hube at 03:28 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 09, 2015

'Clock Boy's' dad is a 9/11 Truther

He maintains an Arabic-language Facebook page that dabbles in 9/11 conspiracies -- like it was "a U.S.-sponsored hoax to launch a worldwide war against Islam."

Still has that White House invite, though!

Posted by Hube at 05:10 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Then why do you support the Iran nuclear deal, dope?

Hillary Clinton on guns and the NRA: "The NRA's position reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the Communists... There’s no possible discussion and it’s for political purposes.”

So then tell us, Hill -- why did we ram that pathetic deal through??

Posted by Hube at 05:08 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Sanctuary city numbers climb, thousands of illegals released ...

... and Boss Obama wants to take your guns away. Don'tcha feel safe??

Posted by Hube at 05:07 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Racism, straight up



Just imagine -- IMAGINE!! -- if this was National Review on Barack Obama in 2008.

It'd be the topic for at least a week on the pundit shows. And racism, natch.

Posted by Hube at 05:06 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 08, 2015

PLO demands apology from Howard Stern

Yeah, that will happen.

The PLO took exception to Stern’s remarks (see here) and accused him of supporting genocide against the Palestinians.

“The General Delegation of the PLO to the United States strongly condemns the recent inflammatory statements against Palestinians made by radio host, Howard Stern, as well as his shameful attack of human rights activist, Roger Waters,” according to the statement, a copy of which was sent to the Washington Free Beacon.

“Mr. Stern’s contention that Palestinians ‘did not live there [Palestine]’ is a claim grounded in racist assumptions that the indigenous Palestinian population does not exist,” claims the organization, which has been held accountable for terror attacks against Jews. “Such baseless allegations only serve to foment violence and hatred, and do little to promote the interests of peace and reconciliation.”

The PLO claims that Stern “has a track-record of misusing his national radio platform to espouse vitriolic and genocidal views against Arabs and, in particular, Palestinians.”

You're playing right into Howard's hands, you dolts. LOL

Posted by Hube at 06:40 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Idiot Gwyneth Paltrow thinks she deserved the same pay as Robert Downey Jr. for Iron Man

Ah, the "troubles" of the Hollywood privileged. Poor Gwyneth Paltrow is lamenting the fact that she didn't make at least what her Iron Man co-star Robert Downey Jr. made for the film(s). Among other things.

“Look, nobody is worth the money that Robert Downey Jr is worth,” Paltrow told Variety. Downey Jr frequently tops Forbes’s best-paid lists, earning $111m (£72.4m) in the past year, nearly $40m more than the best-paid female actor, Jennifer Lawrence.

Paltrow came in at No 12 on the list, having made $9m in 2014. The disparity between pay for men and women was, she said, “painful”.

“Your salary is a way to quantify what you’re worth. If men are being paid a lot more for doing the same thing, it feels shitty.”

Earth to Gwyneth: Nobody bought a ticket for Iron Man, The Avengers and their sequels to see you. R.D. Jr. is Tony Stark, and Tony Stark is Iron Man. The comicbook wasn't called The Invincible Iron Secretary, ok?

If you wanna play this "game," let's go further -- why in the hell should an actor make millions of dollars when even the president only makes $400K per year? Or a cop? A soldier? A teacher?

Posted by Hube at 06:37 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Difference between modern conservatives and 'progressives'

Posted by Hube at 06:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 07, 2015

Howard Stern rips Pink Floyd's Roger Waters over his anti-Semitism

Read all about it.

Waters recently scolded Bon Jovi for performing in Israel; Stern ripped Waters in a "seven-minute profanity-laden rant yesterday:

“What is with Roger Waters and the Jews?” Stern asked, referring to the aging singer as “Mr. Pink Floyd.”

“Why does Roger Waters live in America, a country that was founded on white people coming in and obliterating the native population? How does he stand it? Why don’t we all leave?”

The Palestinian people could live in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, Stern said. “But guess what? Those countries don’t want them either. And it bugs the sh*t out of Roger Waters. He can’t f*cking deal with it. He’s writing letters to Bon Jovi.”

“Where do you want the Jews to go Roger?” Stern exclaimed. “Where do you want them to go? You want them to just go back to the concentration camp? What is it you want, f*ck head?”

Hey, you know who's a big Roger Waters fan? That's right -- 'ol Ron Marz himself:



Remember what Ron has said: "Because I think what you choose to support matters."

Posted by Hube at 06:34 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Scary, scary stuff

What we are in for if Hillary wins in 2016?

From her adventures in cattle trading to chairing a policymaking committee in her husband’s White House to running for Senate in a state she’d never lived in to her effort to use superdelegates to overturn 2008 primary results to her email servers, [Hillary] Clinton is clearly more comfortable than the average person with violating norms and operating in legal gray areas.

Committed Democrats and liberal-leaning interest groups are facing a reality in which any policy gains they achieve are going to come through the profligate use of executive authority, and Clinton is almost uniquely suited to deliver the goods. More than almost anyone else around, she knows where the levers of power lie, and she is comfortable pulling them, procedural niceties be damned.

She truly is the perfect leader for America’s moment of permanent constitutional crisis: a person who cares more about results than process, who cares more about winning the battle than being well-liked, and a person who believes in asking what she can get away with rather than what would look best.

In other words, f*** the Constitution and how things are supposed to work. If she doesn't get what she wants, she just do it anyway.

Such is banana republic politics.

Via The Corner.

Posted by Hube at 06:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Notice the choice of words

"Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?"

That'd be the gun-free society that the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt desires.

Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed ...?

Indeed. After Black Lives Matter protests about police brutality, a federal government that sics the IRS on people/groups it doesn't like, a Secret Service who divulges private information on a political opponent ... yes, by all means, let's only allow the government to possess guns.

There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again.

No, the SCOTUS got it exactly right. But those who want to ignore history and intent will always do so for political gain.

But Hiatt is correct in that it will take the SCOTUS to enable gun confiscation. At least in the short term. We're only one justice away from it. Repealing the 2nd Amendment is a cumbersome process and it will be quite some time, if ever, for the political will to allow it.

If the SCOTUS does dare to overturn its fairly recent decisions affirming an individual's right to own a gun, you may see civil disobedience unlike that since the Revolution.

Posted by Hube at 06:25 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 05, 2015

Trade not aid.

Some people are just slow learners. This is not tragic because at least they can learn. They can finally come around to understand that they were wrong and admitting you were wrong is a mark of maturity. Bono has realized that only the private sector will lift people out of poverty.

But speaking at a UN aid conference in New York, Bono acknowledged that the private sector has a bigger role to play in development than governments.

Addressing business leaders, he said: 'I'm late to realising that it's you guys, it's the private sector, it's commerce that's going to take the majority of people out of extreme poverty. And, as an activist, I almost found that hard to say.'

Welcome to the party.

This give me hope. If he is as dedicated to solving poverty as ever, I expect him to bang the drum of capitalism as loudly as he's been calling for aid. If so, this could get interesting.

Posted by Duffy at 11:32 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 03, 2015

Boss Obama's true feelings on guns come out

He wants us to emulate Great Britain and Australia? They've confiscated guns.

Now how could Boss Obama actually effect such a program here?

We know repealing, or modifying, the 2nd Amendment is out of the question. Such will never garner the requisite votes.

His best hope is that the Supreme Court reverses course from its fairly recent decisions solidifying an individual right to own a gun. It wouldn't happen with the court's current make-up, but if just one of the conservative justices is replaced with a staunch liberal, they could then "revisit" the matter and do a 180.

Of course, it would be outrageously unpopular, and I'd wager it would lead to outright open defiance.

More on Australia's "success."

Posted by Hube at 08:38 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Loved-by-Ron Marz anti-Semitic musician blasts Bon Jovi

... for performing in Israel.

Remember:



More on Waters:

... Israel is a “racist apartheid regime” that practices “ethnic cleansing.” A great artist such as himself will not play in a country equivalent to “Vichy government in occupied France.” Likening Jews to Nazi collaborators was not enough. Waters then went further, comparing Israel to the Nazis themselves. “I would not have played in Berlin either … during the Second World War.” Waters believes that Israel is guilty of genocide, only “this time it’s the Palestinian people being murdered.”

Marz is a guy who wastes no time lecturing us about why buying something from Orson Scott Card is beyond heinous, or how he'll have nothing to do with Dragon Con -- "Because I think what you choose to support matters," he says.

And yet ... there's Roger Waters. Let that sink in.

Posted by Hube at 08:17 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 02, 2015

Yes, our leader 'makes political' wanting to take your guns away, while ...

... we hear of this accusation of nigh traitorous activity:

On Monday afternoon, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who has served as the President of Argentina for nearly eight years, spoke for forty minutes during the 70th session of the General Assembly. While discussing the nuclear arms agreement involving several world superpowers in relation to Iran, Kirchner dropped what seems like a bombshell claiming that Gary Samore — the former White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction under Obama — tried to convince the Argentinians to provide the Iranians with nuclear fuel in 2010.

Thankfully, there's a real leader in the world who's willing to do something like this:

Posted by Hube at 09:10 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The usual suspects ...

As in "the usual moonbat comicbook suspects":







And a retweet from Mark Waid:


Notice anything? All white guys.

Do you ever see these dopes constantly tweeting about guns/gun violence in, say, Chicago after a typical weekend?

Of course not. And if you were like them, you'd call that racism.

Posted by Hube at 08:56 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack