The Tea Party is Keeping it Classy!

One of the great things about the Tea Party is that it claims to be leaderless. There are also many factions of it that are constantly warring with one another over who actually represents the movement. In that they aren't unlike the Communist Party split in the days immediately after the Russian Revolution.

So why is that a great thing? Well, if you're the Tea Party, it allows you to avoid responsibility for anything! For a movement that never tires of advocating personal responsibility, when was they last time you saw them accept direct responsibility for anything that their members have said or done?

The correct answer is "never." Not once. It's always the fault of the mainstream media or some nefarious socialist plot (when the mainstream media itself isn't part of some nefarious socialist plot,) but it's never, ever their fuck up. That's the first reason that you shouldn't trust these people. The second reason is that they're idiots.

Timothy Birdnow is with Tea Party Nation. He has posting rights on their website, so I assume that he speaks for them in some way. And he sure is efficient. In this post he manages to cram so much crazy and stupid into such a small space, just 2,875 words, that you can't help but be impressed!  To give Mr. Birdnow his proper due, he also manages to stuff a healthy dose of small government rhetoric while calling for big government solutions. You really have to read it to believe it.

The takeaway from the Birdnow commentary that Mediaite is running with involves George Zimmerman. You remember George, right? Good. I'd rather not devolve into re-explaining his sad story, nor do I want to re-litigate it.

Birdnow says this about Friday's mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School; "Had George Zimmerman been at the front door instead of some mechanical card reader those children would still be alive."

Let me repeat that in case you missed it. "Had George Zimmerman been at the front door instead of some mechanical card reader those children would still be alive."

That's a highly debatable point, actually. Were those children carrying skittles and iced tea? If they were, that could have been a problem.

The fact that Mr. Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder at least suggests that he isn't exactly judicious with a firearm and is perhaps best kept away from children. Mr. Birdnow also never explains how Zimmerman would have dealt with Adam Lanza's body armor. A head shot, you say? He shot Treyvon Martin in the chest.

It's really too bad that Mediaite focused on the Zimmerman angle because there's just so much other crazy in Birdnow's piece that it should be dealt with at length. He has a list of suggestions, few of which have anything at all to do with gun violence but are almost all paranoid, comic or both.

1. Homeschool. Take away the power of the radicals in the classrooms. Makes your kids safer, too.

Well, it makes your kids safe from strangers, I'll grant you that. But since most murdered kids are taken out by a close relative, why shouldn't they all be?

 2. Back Right to Work legislation for the public sector. Teacher’s unions have helped cement much of this in place. As long as we have group think in the classrooms we will never see the end of this.

Huh? Do non-union teachers have some ninja powers that I'm unaware of. It would be kind of cool if they did. Also, the unionized teachers were shot trying to protect the kids.

3. Engage in more frank discussion of race and culture. For far too long we have tiptoed around these issues, fearful of being branded a racist. If black thugs kidnap and rape a woman, ask if there is something in the black culture that fostered that. If an evil white kid murders a bunch of children at the school, ask the same question of the white community. What was it that spawned this behavior? What was this kid taught? We have to stop hiding from our respective national sins.

I'm not sure what "black thugs" kidnapping and raping a (presumably) white woman have to do with this, but okay. And what exactly does severe mental illness have to do with "national sins?"

It should also be pointed out that the overwhelming majority of the perpetrators of mass public shootings are white men. And the violence is rarely ever racially motivated.

5.Call evil out. We have to stop being sorry and start being angry. This is not a time for national grief so much as a time for national anger. We should stop tolerating this sort of thing. Indeed, stop tolerating any bad behavior. If you see kids jumping ahead in line, say, call them out. If you see punks bothering their neighbors call them out. Say something to the idiot blaring his car stereo. Say something to the foul-mouthed teens. Tell the brats to pull up their pants; nobody wants to see their filthy underwear and pimply behind. We have to start saying something, stop ignoring it. The first way any society maintains order is through social pressure from individuals. We have insanely given that up.

You know, in a nation where everybody is armed, I'm not sure that's very wise. This is, I think, the "broken windows" theory with one important difference. Every loudmouthed hillbilly like Timothy Birdnow gets to be a cop.

6.Work to devolve power back to the parents, the local officials, and the communities. A society that is top-down will inevitably lead to alienation of the sort we have seen here. This young man was twenty years old, and his actions were neither spurious nor random. As an FBI profiler said on television last night, he undoubtedly felt powerless and sought to remedy that. Why does a twenty year old feel powerless? He could leave his mother’s home at any time at his age. He feels powerless because he has lived in an over-bureaucratized society, one run ultimately from a far-away central location. He sees his life as at the mercy of others, and sees himself as having no real input or control. He has been coddled all his life, given free rein to indulge his senses but not to face the responsibilities that freedom necessitates. He was an eternal juvenile, a child who was not allowed to grow up. He lived in a world of the Progressives making, not in reality.

The family is the fundamental building block of civilization, and from it all power originates. The Left has systematically destroyed the family for the purpose of empowering the State, and this has destroyed so many lives. Individuals - especially immature individuals - need to be taught how to live, how to think, how to believe. Man’s animal passions must be placed in check and his rational faculties engaged. His moral compass must be set. Liberalism sought to destroy all the controls by destroying the family and community, centralizing power in meta institutions and granting the individual absolute moral autonomy without giving him the wisdom he needs to exercise it. . It is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen.

Um, wow.

Birdnow thinks the solution is a devolution of power from the federal government. He then cites the opinion of an FBI profiler and plasters his own opinion over that of the profiler. I've read a lot about profilers. Never once have I heard them cite "Progressives" as a cause of anything.

Moreover, who do you suppose that Birdnow wants to empower the family to triumph over the dastardly Left? My guess is Congress. I know, I can't follow his fucking logic, either.

7. Restrict the sex in movies, television, on the internet. There is a reason why young people commit these sorts of crimes, and sex plays no small part. Their passions are eternally inflamed, and they wander the Earth with no outlet for their overstimulated glands. People have understood the close relationship between sex and violence through history; sex was an inducement to military service in ancient times (and modern, too) and it has traditionally been understood that a sexually robust individual will fight harder and more aggressively. We are engaging half this equation, overstimulating our youth while denying them a planned outlet. Even if they were to live promiscuously (a very bad thing for society) they still cannot find adequate outlets for their passions, which have grown to titanic volume. Fighting is the traditional outlet. Societies have always carefully planned ways to release this tension constructively - through physical labor, through hunting, through military service, sometimes even through intellectual pursuits. Now we have nothing, no place for this pent-up frustration to go. The only answer is to follow the other societal coping mechanism, which is to tone down the sexual stimulation, encourage chastity and modesty. Our society has conveniently thrown that away as well. We have to restore it.

Parents, monitor what your children watch, what they look at on the internet. Make sure they dress modestly.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. These guys are going ape with an AR-15 because they're horny?  Are you serious?

Again, who is to be restricting "the sex in movies, television, on the internet?" This guy likes the government a whole lot more than he's letting on. And I love how "intellectual pursuits" can "relieve tension," but only "sometimes."

Birdnow obviously holds the Second Amendment very close to his heart, so much so that he sometimes forget that there's one right before it. Or would he prefer that it be stopped at the distribution point, which is government interference in business and exactly what the Tea Party is supposed to be fighting against.

You know what else relieves sexual tension, Tim? Furious masturbation and hardcore, animalistic fucking. Want proof? I'm the least excitable person I know.

Finally, making sure children dress modestly has certainly gone a long way in preventing Afghanistan into a violent and chaotic shithole. Oh, wait ....

8. Control drugs. Do not think that puffing a joint is harmless. Several American states decriminalized Marijuana, and it is actually legal in Washington and Colorado. Is it a coincidence that this shooting just occurred? Probably, but not in the long haul. Drugs and crime and violence go together. Trayvon Martin, the youth shot and killed by a neighborhood watch captain after he was assaulted , was likely high http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2888655/postswhen he was shot - and George Zimmerman has claimed Martin assaulted him, something backed by medical testimony. Martin had trace amounts of marijuana in his system, http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-17/news/31753474_1_medical-... should be pointed out. Would Martin have done that had he been sober? And medical marijuana is a joke; there are far better substances that can be used. It is nothing but a way to backdoor legalization.

Again with the government! Remember, it's the state and local governments that are decriminalizing marijuana, precisely the people the people that these Tea Party types are supposed to trust more than the diabolical tyrants in Washington that they need their semi-automatic weapons to defend themselves against.

I know that you teenagers are hip enough that I don't need to point this out to you, but Mr. Birdnow doesn't understand that potheads are too busy giggling to attack anyone.

10.Go back to church. We need God more than ever, need prayer. It’s time the Ten Commandments were taught again. It’s time the Bible was taught. It’s time people learned the examples of the heroes of our Judeo-Christian heritage - heroes like Moses, who gave up his life as an Egyptian noble to become a shepherd and eventually lead his birth mother’s kin out of slavery, or David who spent years hiding from King Saul, and who, at one point, had Saul completely under his power (in the cave of Adullum) but would not smite the Lord’s anointed, or of John the Baptizer, a man who spoke the truth until his head was cut off, or of any of the Apostles who died for their faith. Most of all they should learn of Jesus, who refused to turn from the Truth and allowed himself to be sacrificed in the most painful manner possible for other people’s sins.

This evil can be fought, but not by any methods likely to be proposed by Progressives or imposed by our government. At best it will entail a top-down approach that will impose greater restrictions on the individual, on the family, and on the community. The solutions will be more of what caused this in the first place.

"Well, we obviously need the tyrannical and probably Marxist federal government to stop the porn and pot, but once that's taken over, the churches can take care of the rest."

You know what scares me even more than monsters like Adam Lanza walking among us? The fact that otherwise intelligent people support and vote for ideological nonsense like this.

"Our Long National Chick-fil-A Nightmare is Over."

In late July and early August, I wrote a couple of posts about American coronary factory Chick-fil-A's marketing fiasco regarding their corporate stand on gays. You can read them here and here.

One thing that should be made perfectly clear is that this wasn't about Dan Cathy's personal stands because the donations in question were made by Chick-fil-A as a business. Indeed, if the company was publicly traded, its stockholders would very probably have shown the Cathy family the door, if not actually had them executed.

You see, for businesses to involve themselves in public controversies that don't direct affect them is just bad business. No matter what you say, you're almost guaranteed to alienate half of your market. Who in the fuck needs that?

Of course, liberals just had to be liberals and refused to let the market take care of itself. A few mouthy mayors just had to threaten to complicate Chick-fil-A's future expansion, which immediately made this a First Amendment issue instead of whether or not Chick-fil-A were mouthbreathing tools. Even I took Chick-fil-A's side on that.

The reason that liberals are singularly incapable of bringing half the population to their point of view is that they have to make things far more complicated than they are and insist on a bureaucratic solution for everything, whereas normal human beings would much rather brawl it out in the marketplace of ideas. Not only is government not always the solution, it only very rarely ever is.

I remain convinced that, barring the fuckheaded interference of liberals, the market would have taken care of the story in less than a week. Yes, you might have had some semi-mongoloids who actually like looking like bigoted assholes marching in support of the company, but you would not have had Fox News, the fucking Tea Party and every glory-hound dickhead blogger on earth determined to make them a zillion dollars in a day.

Reasonable people would have thought about it and very quietly said to themselves, "I have close friends, co-workers and family members who are gay. I can't see a single plausible reason that some fucking fast-food restaurant would go out of their way to fuck with them, so I don't think I want to give them my money. If they want to make a public issue out of their superstitious stupidity, we'll see how well that works out for them."

That's how this story should have played out. And that's why everybody hates liberals.

Instead, we wound up with Fox News broadcasting a 24-hour marathon of people lining up for hours to throw money at Don Cathy. Even has-beens like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin managed to wring their lusted-after sixteenth minute of fame out of it.

And those people weren't wrong in doing so. It no longer was an issue of whether or not Chick-fil-A was evil, the question had become one of the power and reach of ward-heeling assholes in Boston, New York and Chicago. And that was a question people who wanted to call Chick-fil-A out weren't ever going to win. Ever.

After the hugely profitable "Chick-Fil-A Anti-Gay Day," the story gleefully disappeared. Even I dropped it, mostly because that's when I thought that things were going to get interesting.

And guess what?

Chick-fil-A has pledged to stop giving money to anti-gay groups and to back off political and social debates after an executive’s comments this summer landed the fast-food chain smack in the middle of the gay marriage debate.

The Civil Rights Agenda, which dubs itself the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group in Illinois, said Chick-fil-A agreed in meetings to stop donating to groups such as Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage. Such groups oppose same-sex marriage.

The LGBT collective said the Atlanta-based restaurant chain also sent a letter, signed by its senior director of real estate, to Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno.

Chick-fil-A said in the missive that its nonprofit arm, the WinShape Foundation, “is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas,” according to TCRA.

That still hasn't work out the way I would have liked because of the involvement of Moreno, one of the ward-heelers that threatened zoning prohibitions on Chick-fil-A. The yokels are still going to be able to say that they made a business decision solely because of government pressure. And by copying Moreno on the letter, Chick-fil-A furthers that narrative.

If private advocacy groups like The Civil Rights Agenda figure that they have the market juice to put a gun to Chick-fil-A's head, fine. After all, that's the kind of shit that the Family Research Council and the fucking awful Catholic League try to pull all the time.

But it's never going to be a clean victory for those of us who thought that Chick-fil-A were being mouth-breathers precisely because of the weight that the fucking government threw into the fight. Those of us who thought that the company was engaging in half-witted religious grandstanding are never going to be able to say that the marketplace actually won because we'll never be able to prove it.

Did I mention that this is why everybody hates liberals?

Why People Frighten Me, Volume 9,736

Please note that my offer of marriage earlier this morning does not extend to this broad. Just thought I'd clear that up.



Video ruthlessly stolen from The Superficial. 

The lonesome death of Joe Paterno and the fall of college football

If you want to get Americans really pissed off at you, you needn't challenge their foreign policies or even the fact that they're individually getting bigger than their own houses. They expect that from filthy foreigners, so they ignore it. But if you criticize college sports, and especially football, you better be ready to go to war, son. Those people don't fuck around about that.

I was in Ann Arbor, Michigan about eight years ago and I was shocked (and more than a little horrified) to see the University of Michigan's football stadium. It was easily the size of a major market professional stadium, and Ann Arbor isn't what any sane person would call a major market. That stadium is the kind of kind of thing you see in Nuremberg, which has a population roughly five times that of Ann Arbor. The only difference is that the monstrosity in Nuremberg celebrates eagles instead of wolverines.

Sure, I had heard about it, but I had never actually seen it. When I did, I looked at the local woman I was fucking at the time and said that it was "the largest publicly financed monument to drunkenness, stupidity and date rape since the Fall of Rome."

In light of recent events at Pennsylvania State University, my Roman reference was actually prophetic. We now know that Penn State tacitly permitted child-rape to occur on the premises. A sixty-eight year old assistant coach named Jerry Sandusky was plowing his way through every male child in sight, and not only was there no shortage of people who knew about it, they allowed it to continue.

The one constant theme in Thursday's Freeh Report is the self-justification of Sandusky's co-conspirators (and they are exactly that, in everything but the legal sense) to "protect the institution of Penn State." You see that over and over in their communications with each other.

Horseshit. They weren't protecting Penn State. How do I know that? Because I know that if a philosophy professor slipped and found himself firmly embedded inside a comely, legally-aged co-ed, that professor would be very publicly bounced out on his ass and find himself unemployable.

Let's be clear about thing: Sandusky's crimes aren't a case of "I think he touched it" molestation. This is hard-core, push-him-against-the-shower-wall-and-fuck-him-in-the-ass rape. This was the kind of shit that you hear about happening in prison, and it was visited upon boys as young as ten. And we now know that the Powers That Be sanctioned it for at least a full decade to "protect the institution of Penn State."

No, these people were protecting Penn State's football program. Period. Because nobody who knew about Sandusky's child-rape marathon presumed to stop him, they explicitly enabled him to continue. Not only did he continue buggering boys; he did so on campus, even after he retired. And he was allowed to do in the name of football. Again, do you think that the school would circle their wagons around the fucking physics department that way? I don't.

If anything, this is worse than the way that the Catholic Church used to deal with their kid-fuckers. At least the One True Church would move their pedophiles around to maintain at least the appearance of propriety. Penn State kept Sandusky right where he was, again, even after he retired. On the other hand, the Catholic Church analogy falls apart because football has always been more of a Protestant sport.

Here's another chilling fact. Law enforcement and academic statistics say that for every sex abuse victim that reports their violation, there are ten that don't. But those statistics are almost exclusively devoted to female victims. I would wager that the margin is far wider for abused men and boys. There are very likely hundreds of Sandusky's victims out there still. Given his age when he was finally stopped, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there turned out to be more than a thousand.

As is true of most men, you would think that the sex drive of pedophiles slows down as they hit later-middle age. Sandusky, on the other hand, was still going strong as he approached seventy. Since I'm not aware of a single instance of a carnal attraction to children manifesting itself during an offender's fifties (when the fables of Sandusky's conduct started to circulate through the Penn State administration,) I'm horrified to think of what this monster may have done during his sexual prime. And all but two of the years of Sandusky's adult life - 1967 and '68 - were spent at Penn State.

I inherently distrust anyone that has statues made of them during their lifetimes. The Bible actually has a few things to say about it, too. The second that statue of you is erected, you become somehow more than human and less than accountable, After all, you have a statue, right?

That's certainly what happened with Joe Paterno. When it became clear that Paterno was at least complicit in Sandusky's savage kid-fucking spree, the university found itself with no other choice to fire his ass. And the townsfolk of University Park responded by rioting. After all, Paterno coached football. And he had a statue.

Americans have a strange tendency to create personality cults that do monstrous evil. I never have heard of a group of, say, Finns, cutting off their own genitals and poisoning themselves in a rented mansion, have you? Combine that with something as populist as football and a shit-ton of money, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Look, this isn't a situation where we can find out "what the market would do" to punish this kind of evil. Having said that, I think that if the Pittsburgh Steelers had a similar scandal, everyone would forget about it almost immediately, too. Within three seasons, they'd be just as popular as they are now.

Penn State is exactly what it's name implies, an arm of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As such, it isn't subject to the whimsy of the market, but it is liable for torts committed by it. Try as I might, I can't imagine any jury that reads the Freeh Report declining to award civil plaintiffs against Penn State untold fortunes in damages.

Those damages won't be paid off by the football program, or even Penn State itself. The taxpayers of Pennsylvania will be on the hook for every nickle. Sandusky is likely broke from his trial, Paterno's dead, and pretty much everyone else named in the Freeh Report is under indictment, so who else do you sue? The agencies of the state that enabled the almost satanic mess in the first place.

As I said earlier, Jerry Sandusky wouldn't have survived fifteen seconds if he was a physics professor, mostly because there isn't a national cult built around college physics in America and it doesn't print money the way football does. It was only because of cultish devotion and money that Sandusky's evil became the contagion that it did. Absent the football program, you might have one or two incidents. With it, you get at least fifteen years worth of them, and probably many more.

Were I one of Sandusky's victims, I would spend the rest of my life full of a righteous indignation and possessed of a wholly justifiable determination to financially ruin the institutions that knowingly allowed me to be violated that way. I sincerely hope that his victims literally rain holy vengeance down upon Penn State for the insidious ways that they were wronged and sexually tortured. It was deliberate, systematic, and at least tacitly sanctioned by agents of the State.

If you want to argue that Penn State is an isolated incident, I would suggest that you're probably kidding yourself. The cultish devotion to football and the enormous amounts of money it generates is hardly specific to Penn State. That creates a natural atmosphere where people like Jerry Sandusky can't help but worm themselves into. This might be one of the very few instances where the worst case is uncovered first, but there's no reason to believe that it's going to be the only instance.

I don't think this is over. Not by a long shot. And if the states don't get their shit together soon, college football won't exist at all. State budgets are being crushed and, sooner or later, taxpayers are going to tire of paying out tens of millions in judgements because of the criminal sexual habits of some guy that tells teenagers  how to throw a leather ball up and down a flat field.

If you think I'm pessimistic about the future, you're right and I'll tell you why. We knew everything we needed to know about Joe Paterno before Christmas. But he still died peacefully, surrounded by a loving family, and with no shortage of devoted defenders.

And most of all, that fucking statue is still proudly standing at Penn State.

And I love how sensitive all the Penn State sycophants got about Joe Paterno criticism. People wanted to lynch me when I went on Twitter and mocked him after he died. There's still a giant statue of him at Penn State, so I wrote, "From now on, anyone raped at Penn State should just tell Joe Paterno's statue. It couldn't help you any less than the real Joe would have." Which I thought was a pretty salient point. Penn State fans, however, thought I was making a point just as an excuse to wrap a cheap joke around it. I guess we were both right."
-Jim Norton

Hugo Chavez is History's Greatest Monster

Since the end of the Second World War the United States has had to have some boogieman somewhere in the world, mostly to justify it's foreign policy.

In the early days of the Cold War, you had Stalin and Mao, both of whom were more than adequate to the task of scaring Americans stupid. Both were, after all, unparalleled mass murderers that were armed with nuclear weapons. Stalin had claimed half of Europe as his own and Mao's Korean intervention (although provoked) cost thousands of American servicemen their lives.

But most of the folks that the National Security Council wanted to scare the shit out everybody with came from Third World shitholes and were singularly incapable of inflicting much harm on the United States at all. None of them were nice people - although, they were about as bad as most of America's closest allies at the time - but none of them were, in the opinion of most serious experts, much of a threat. But that didn't stop American presidents from regularly comparing them to Hitler, often

Having said that, they often caused American administrations to do impossibly counter-productive, damaging and stupid things. Since the Republican blogosphere and a goodly portion of the mainstream media has recently been obsessed with playing "What Would Ronald Reagan Do", I'd like to use as an example something that President Reagan actually did do. It involves one Daniel Ortega and his Sandinista National Liberation Front.

The Marxist Sandinistas deposed the vicious regime of Anastasio Somoza Debayle in July of 1979, greatly displeasing the United States. The Carter administration, however, decided that most Americans couldn't find Nicaragua on a map and left it at that. The incoming Reagan administration had very different ideas.

Beginning in 1981, President Reagan authorized the CIA to finance, arm and train the Contra rebels opposing the Sandinista. That was supposedly stopped when Congress passed the Boland Amendment in December of 1982. Reagan ignored the law and solicited contributions from private citizens and, among others, Israel and Saudi Arabia. In itself, this was an impeachable offence that was later compounded by the diversion of profits from the illegal arms sales to Iran to the Contras. Collectively, the actions became known as the Iran-Contra Affair, and if Americans were serious about their own Constitution, Reagan would have been removed from office over it.

People like The Washington Post's Marc Thiessen like to do public victory laps and declare that the United States "removed" the Sandinista's. And that's true, insofar as Ortega called elections that he lost seven years after the Boland Amendment was passed and three years after Iran-Contra was exposed.

What people like Thiessen don't tell you is that the Sandinistas, with Ortega heading them and with former Contra support, were freely elected in November, 2006. They remain in power to this day. It turns out that these things rarely work out as planned, but that's not stopping Thiessen from recommending the very same thing in Libya, although I should point out that number of U.S laws that he wants to see broken this time remains unknown.

But this little essay really isn't about Daniel Ortega or even U.S foreign policy. It's about monsters and more importantly, titties. Although
I'm celebrated the world over as a vagina man, fantabulous funbags are pretty important to me as well. I learned as a child the importance of being a well-rounded individual and have strived toward it ever since.

It is because of this that I have reconsidered my views on another target of American foreign policy and the fuckhead Republican blogosphere.
You see, I never regarded Venezuela's Hugo Chavez as anything more than a clown, and a particularly doughy one at that. He didn't even have the fun hobbies that made Manuel Noriega such a celebrated bad guy. I was therefore of the opinion that the second Bush administration demonized him simply out of boredom, which is interesting in that that demonetization began in the period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

But, as sometimes happens, I was wrong. Not only is Chavez a wretched personage and a blight on humanity. He is perhaps history's greatest monster and we would do well to be without him spiritually befouling us another day.

Hugo Chavez has had enough of “monstrous” breasts.

In his latest televised address, the Venezuelan leader condemned his nations’ love with plastic surgery, adding that breast augmentations “did not square well with his revolutionary priorities.”

Chavez called it a “monstrous thing” to see women with little financial resources spending their savings on larger breasts and condemned doctors who “convince some women that if they don’t have some big bosoms, they should feel bad.”

Venezuela is home to the highest number of plastic surgeries in the world per capita with 40,000 women a year undergoing breast enlargements, according to the Venezuelan Society of Plastic Surgeons.

“It is painful to see girls or women that may not have sufficient resources for housing, to accommodate housing for the children, [to buy] clothes, who are looking to see how to do an operation on the breasts,” Chavez said in his speech.

Now I remember why I despise Marxism so! In fairness, I really haven't had to confront the issue in quite some time because, unlike Glenn Beck, I really don't see a parallel between Van Jones and Zhou Enlai. When Russia, China and Vietnam are became more hyper-capitalist than the United States, I thought it was a fair assumption that the threat of international communism had passed.

Again, my bad.

The Chavez regime is attacking the very idea of monstrous knockers and this is a clear assault on everything I hold dear. When nation-states interfere with the right to posses and wield gigantic jugs, it is something that I'm not sure my way of life can survive. I am, if nothing else, a small-government conservative, after all.

It appears that el presidente has an even more pitiable working knowledge of both economics and life itself than I had previously thought. How else does one reasonably expect "girls or women that may not have sufficient resources for housing" to acquire those resources? By getting big, fat titties, that's fucking how!

I've known any number of women with formidable bosoms in my day, and I can report that each of them have had no shortage of men wanting to provide them with free housing. It's a well-known economic model and it rarely fails the women in question. Whenever it does fail them, another gentleman caller will house her and her knockers. And that, Hugo, is the way God fucking planned it. But atheistic communism blinds people to life's simplest realities, which is why it has failed everywhere it has been tried.

This is nothing less than an attack on economic opportunity for Venezuelan women and, as the blogosphere's most revered feminist thinker, I won't stand for it and neither should you.

I'm not man that's afraid to admit when he's wrong, and that's what I'm doing right here and now. I was wrong and Pat Robertson was right. Hugo Chavez has to be assassinated. There's just no reasonable alternative to that now. If you merely depose him in a coup, he returns like a cockroach.

He has to be killed and I think that Sofia Vergara should be the one to do the killing. She speaks the language, would blend in better than any schmuck from Langley, and has a crystal clear motive: she knows the power of a well-stocked brassiere and the riches it can bring.

This might be the single most important issue confronting humanity today. I didn't want any of you wondering where I stood on it.

"All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing." That's just as true today as it was when Larry Flynt first said it, lo those many years ago.