More Gun Shit

At this point, I've written so many times about guns that I don't know what else to say. None of us do. It's the same fuckin' merry-go-round of arguments that really come back to, for me, the simple question: "Well, why don't we try something?" Because, see, as of now, as of the last 15 years or so, we haven't done anything except make it easier for people to get more guns and ammo. So let's try something.

When I posted on Twitter that I thought assault weapons should be outlawed and then gathered by law enforcement through a buyback, I ended by saying that if that doesn't work, "pry them from cold, dead hands." Predictably, that led to responses like "Try it, pussy" or "So you want the government to kill people to get guns. That's why we have guns" or other gun shit. I don't want mass murder. I don't want civil war. I'm not even proposing banning all guns. But if laws change, as they sometimes do, you gotta follow them or you get arrested. When the speed limit went down on my street, I didn't say, "Fuck you, motherfuckers. I'm doing the old speed." And if you won't comply with the law peacefully, well, shit, Cletus, that's on you.

All I want at this point is to go back to the Republican assault weapons ban from 1989, which happened after a school shooting in Stockton, California, that left 5 dead. It seems like a quaint number now in the age of regular double-digit corpse counts, but it shocked the country. And George H. W. Bush signed an executive order banning certain assault weapons. Then, urged by Carter, Ford, and Reagan, in 1994, the Congress passed a crime bill with a weaker ban, but it was still there.

As far as the legality of that ban, the Supreme Court never took it up. A lower court said it was constitutional. And, just a couple of months ago, the Supreme Court let stand a U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that an assault weapons ban in Maryland was totally constitutional. By 10-4 vote, the circuit court, which is not "liberal" or "activist" by any stretch, said, "Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment." And SCOTUS let it stand.

Here's what would happen if AR-15s and the like were banned: Almost everyone who owns one would turn it in for buyback cash because they are law-abiding citizens. A few would try to protest and then have their guns taken when they're peacefully arrested. A tiny number would keep them secretly. Maybe a couple of idiots would try to Ruby Ridge it. We know how that ended. And some criminals would be criminals about it. But considering that most of the guns used in mass shootings are bought legally, at the very least, maybe we'd save some children's lives.

And, honestly, I have never heard of a situation where an AR-15 was the only gun necessary to defend oneself. Sure, you can show someone a gun and they'll back down, but, shit, that'd work if you had a little revolver. When is the last time an ordinary American was in a bind where they needed a semi-automatic rifle?


How Much Sperm Is on Trump in His 1987 Portrait?

Since a few conservatives have decided to be art critics and look closely at the official portrait of President Barack Obama for secret sperm imagery (this is really a thing), perhaps we would do well to see how much sperm is in another portrait, that of current president Donald Trump. In 1987, Trump hired artist Ralph Wolfe Cowan to do his face and body in a totally sexy and not at all douchey golf outfit. That painting hangs at the bar at Mar-a-Lago because of course it does. Cowan did not really have a great time working for Trump, who was a dick about the way Cowan wanted to leave the painting with an unfinished section because art. So, obviously, Cowan took his revenge with sperm imagery.

Upon closer examination of the work, Trump is coated with jizz. There is jizz on his face, jizz on his clothes, jizz on his hands. There is so much jizz on Donald Trump that it's like he was in the center of a circle jerk and was gratified as fountains of jizz were spooged all over him.

Seriously, look at his dumb fucking head:

I've seen gay bukkake porn where the dude craving cum had less sperm on his face.

And the rest of the painting is a blown load of sperm imagery. The sky is a mixture of shit and sperm, obviously befitting a man of Trump's tastes. Trump's right hand is in his pocket, the better to gratify himself since being glazed with spunk sexually excites him.

And, even though we don't want to, let's check out his crotch. We must. It is in the interest of art. Or something.

The groin area already has telltale cum stains, and the fingers of his left hand have clearly wiped jizz off them on the pants, perhaps demonstrating how Trump satisfies all his many creditors. Sean Hannity must be in a sweaty tizzy over this painting that Trump proudly displays so all can see what a cum whore he is.

Indeed, one way to see this portrait of the young(er) president is as a portrait in sperm, perhaps better titled "Donald Trump Can Go Fuck Himself."


Trump's Infrastructure Brag Relied Solely on Government Funds

Our braying fart of president, Donald Trump, trumpeted his skills at rebuilding infrastructure yesterday at an event announcing some bullshit plan. And he used as an example his company's work on the Wollman Rink in Central Park thirty years ago. It's an ice-skating rink, not, you know, a bridge, but he's a proud motherfucker about that play area: "When I did the Wollman Rink, it was 7 years, they couldn’t get it built. It would have been forever. They couldn’t get it built. And I did it in a few months at a much smaller price. They had invested $12 million in building an ice skating rink in the middle of Central Park. Somebody told me about this the other day; they’ve never forgotten it. It was a big deal at the time. It remains a big deal...And I got involved. And I did it in a few months, and we did it for a tiny fraction — tiny fraction of the cost." And because he's gotta be dickish and wrong, he added, "And it’s really no different with a roadway. It’s no different with a bridge or tunnel, or any of the things that we’ll be fixing."

Yeah, Wollman Rink is nice. Yeah, it was a clusterfuck of failure until the end there. But it's a little more complicated, of course, and, of course, Trump exaggerated shit.

For six years (not seven), New York City tried and failed to install steel pipes with freon in the base of the rink to keep it icy. That, combined with, yes, some fucked up rules regarding contracts, was the mistake. By the time they decided to scrap that and move to brine in plastic pipes, they had burned through $12 million. But then once the city finally bailed on freon in 1986, it said that the cost would be $2-3 million to finish the job. Trump came in and said, "Gimme the $3 mill and I'll do it." So the "fraction" of the cost was not something Trump decided on. He was merely the developer. He did get it done quickly and under the $3 million budget, but he didn't spend a nickel.

And, again, it was no miracle it came in under $3 million. That was dead in the middle of the projections of what it would cost.

And, let's be clear, the entire project was paid for by New York City. It wasn't "public/private" funding, as Trump wants his infrastructure spending to be. It was public funding.

And Mr. America First hired a Canadian company to come in and build the rink.

And while the rink was being built, Trump held regular news conferences to brag about how great he was to rebuild the rink, including one where three guys just swept behind him in order to show work being done. He held a press conference to announce the ice was down and, five days later, the ice was ready. He bragged that the railed was the "same railing Onassis had on his boat." It was a fucking embarrassing circus.

And when Trump lost a bid in 1995 to continue running the rink, which turned a profit pretty quickly, he was, of course, a dick about it, saying, "The last thing I need is to be running a skating rink."

To be fair, when the rink opened, Trump was asked if he was going to skate, and he did say something pretty funny and prescient: "No thanks. There are too many people who would like to see me fall on my rear end."


Trump at the National Prayer Breakfast: Lies, Hypocrisy, and Bagels

I was really not in the mood to write one more goddamn post about something that Donald Trump face-farted out, but then I made the mistake of looking at his remarks at the Annual National Prayer Breakfast (motto: "You Know We Just Mean Christian Prayers") and saw a few things that were odd, sketchy, and fucked-up. In short order:

1. Talking about gun victim and garbage human Steve Scalise, Trump said, "Your presence reminds us of Jesus’s words in the Book of Matthew: 'With God all things are possible.'" Yeah, that's from Matthew 19. Just three verses earlier, Jesus was a little more circumspect about what is possible: "Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" Or maybe the gathered bloated rich fucks should have heeded Jesus just two verses before that, when he tells a rich fuck, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor." Yeah, Jesus would have kicked Trump right in his giant ass and said, "Turn your other cheek so I can kick the shit out of that one, too."

2. "[T]he words 'Praise be to God' are etched atop the Washington Monument." This is a minor thing, but the words "Laus Deo" are on the top of the monument. They translate to what Trump said, but, still, that ain't what's "etched."

3. "We see the Lord’s grace in the moms and dads who work two and three jobs to give their children the chance for a better and much more prosperous and happier life." Yeah, Trump actually praised God for the crushing, soul-tearing poverty that forces parents to work 80 hours a week, giving them no time to spend with their kids. That is some fucked-up shit right there. Trump is essentially washing his hands of the poor and saying, "Yep, God did this, not a cruel capitalistic system that exploits workers and a savage conservative government that won't provide relief."

4. The most blatant lie was "America stands with all people suffering oppression and religious persecution." Not only are we turning away refugees of oppression, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is actively seeking to deport the persecuted, even those persecuted for being Christian, and send them back to the countries that will harm them for their beliefs, all because they didn't fill out the right fucking forms at the right fucking time, or because some artificial deadline passed and they're no longer protected by an American government that couldn't give a fuck about their suffering.

5. And when Trump said, "[L]et us resolve to find the best within ourselves. Let us pray for that extra measure of strength and that extra measure of devotion," was there no one in that room who could stand up and say, "Motherfucker, you have assaulted women and protected a known abuser. You destroy families, pollute the Earth, and fan the flames of hatred. God should slap the prayers right out of your orange fascist face"? No, there wasn't. There were only greedy sycophants, ready to cleanse Trump of his sins, even the ones he committed right in front of them.


Note to Trump-Humpers: None of Your Conspiracy Theories Exonerates Your Man

Whenever some dingleberry of seeming bias against President Donald Trump is sharted out by his state media on Fox "news," the president and his supporters will crow that he is "vindicated" of one thing or other, usually that his campaign conspired with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election. Someone on some goddamn website or Twitter account finds some utterly minor thing that, blown up with graphics and set to sinister music, can be made to seem like the Deep State run by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is just setting up poor, innocent, pure, God-chosen Donald Trump in order to frame him for some crime he wouldn't ever even contemplate committing.

They did it with the Uranium One bullshit, declaring that "the real Russia scandal." They did it with the Nunes memo, which just showed that the FBI follows leads. They accuse Republicans Robert Mueller and James Comey of bias, which seems to mean, "If you want to investigate whether Donald Trump and people around him might have committed crimes." And they're doing it with the text messages of a couple of FBI agents now, with the latest supposedly implicating President Obama (spoiler: it doesn't and you're stupid if you think it does).

But here's the deal: Not one of these things clears Trump or his awful family or his merry band of plague rats and rabid dogs that we are forced to call "the White House."

Let's lay it all out as clearly as possible once again (because this is shit I've talked about before).

- Hillary Clinton could have totally given away 20% of the U.S. uranium deposits to the Russians in order to secure donations to her family's charity (honestly, just writing that seems so patently absurd, it hurts my brain a little). Sure, she would have had to have bribed or threatened the dozens of other people involved in any decision about uranium, but, shit, she's Hillary Clinton, allegedly the stone cold murderer of dozens of political enemies, so, sure, yeah, let's say this could totally happen.

- The FBI could have totally lied about the Democratic Party's involvement in the Steele dossier, as the Nunes memo asserts (even though, factually, the FBI didn't lie, but we're saying if horseshit were gold here), in order to continue surveillance of Carter Page, which they had started in 2013, but, obviously, they totally knew that he would be named by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers and just got a jump on it.

- James Comey could have totally been compromised into not charging Hillary Clinton with a crime on the emails, which somehow translates into something something no collusion Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch in the parlor with a candlestick. (I really don't understand the "fuck evidence and punch reality in the dick" mindset.)

- Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page could have been totally biased against Trump and their texts about what an asshole he is indicate that they had preconceived notions about whatever part of the investigation they worked on. And there could totally be a secret society of FBI agents meeting in some off-site coven to do some hoodoo to Trump. And today's big revelation, that Page had texted in September 2016, "potus wants to know everything we’re doing," could totally mean Obama wanted to interfere with the Hillary email investigation and not that he wanted to know if the United States was being cyber-attacked by Russia, which is definitely what it was, but, you know, Hillary using a private email server is worse than Watergate times Teapot Dome times Iran-Contra, motherfuckers.

Goddamn, you people are fucking nuts.

And, you know, the only way that any of these conspiracies make sense as being real is if there is a massive uber-conspiracy involving everyone from grunt-level agents to the former president of the United States to discredit Trump and his administration, and, even then, it would have had to start 5 years ago.

Of course, all Trump needs for all this to work is a few craven Republicans, like Devin Nunes and Ron "Secret Sauce" Johnson, to run interference, as well as media outlets permanently attached to his poisonous man-teats. The idiot hordes will gobble it up like Jesus jizz.

Yet, if every single one of those conspiracies were true, it still does nothing to prove that Trump isn't a money-launderer who is in the back pocket of Vladimir Putin and other rich fuck Russians, it does nothing to prove that Russia didn't use a bunch of different methods to tilt the election to Trump, and it also does nothing to change the outcome of the 2016 presidential race (the excuse that Trump and his spokeslackeys use as the reason why Democrats care about a foreign government fucking with our electoral process or that Trump may be compromised, not that they might actually give a shit that our sovereignty might have been breached).

If Donald Trump were innocent, you wouldn't need a single one of the crazy conspiracies to explain it all away. You'd have the truth. But truth is now just a ragged angel whose wings have been perforated by the birdshot of unending lies.


Donald Trump Gives Us More Sedition and Hate

For a man who talks like an old Vegas emcee trying to make Bugsy Siegel smile, constantly saying that he "loves" wherever he happens to be or whoever happens to be in front of him, President Donald Trump can't help but show how much he hates pretty much everyone. Oh, he can put on an act, but, time and again, he demonstrates that he hates America, he hates Americans, he hates the Constitution, and he hates our institutions. Sure, he loves people cheering for him, so he fakes it as best he can. But to get those cheers, he makes sure he shits on whatever will make the crowd slaveringly applause.

In his pissy little speech he gave yesterday in Ohio at the Sheffer Corporation, Trump couldn't just tout his administration's economic "achievements," almost all of which are possible only because the Obama economy is still running strong. No, he had to, as is his way, shit on people and things left and right.

On manufacturing work: "Those are real jobs, not the other kind where they talk but there’s nothing there." What the fuck are those jobs? Is it the media? Executives? Goddamn, Gramps, why are you dissing white collar work? Your kids do that shit.

On trade deals with other countries: "[W]ait until you see what’s happening over the next two or three months with what we’re doing to countries that have treated us so unfairly. In many cases, so-called 'friendly countries.' I don’t call them 'friendly.' I don’t call them 'friendly.'" So the goddamned president is telling our allies that he doesn't consider them friends to the United States. Can't wait until they tell us, "Hey, pal, go fuck yourself over North Korea."

Then there was the frankly bizarro repetition of lines. There was the repeated assertion that Democrats, the recipients of many piles of shit from Trump, are going to raise taxes. And this is an actual line from the White House transcript of the "speech" (if by "speech," you mean, "the kind of dumbass improvised bullshit you expect when a shitfaced uncle tries to make a toast at his nephew's bar mitzvah"): "We’ve got to do well in ’18, and I know we’re going to do great in ’20. But I think we’re going to do well in ’18. I think we’re going to do well in ’18. I think we’re going to do very well." I didn't mess that up. That's what he said. He repeated the same line almost verbatim four times in a row. And he wasn't leading a chant.

While one thing Trump said got all the attention yesterday (and we'll get to that in a second), the entire speech was like his usual stream of consciousness nonsense, except it was like someone had hit him in the head with a hammer before he spoke. He went on to cajole the crowd to not skip out on voting in the midterms. Or, as he put it, "Maybe they go to a movie in ’18. None of you are going to a movie, I hope." And then he explained, "You win the presidency and you take it easy, and then they come and surprise you in the midterms. They call them the 'midterms.'" Yeah, we fucking well do. They've been called the "midterms" for over a century. It's as if Trump thinks he's giving his listeners some inside scoop on politics when he's just giving them a watered down version of the pablum he spoons into his maw every morning straight from the Fox and Friends bowl.

Trump was unrelenting in criticizing House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. With Hillary Clinton out of the picture, Pelosi is going to become the woman who is the face of liberal evil for the next election cycle (they call them that, too). No fewer than three different times, Trump attacked Pelosi, and he revealed the strategy of the RNC: "She’s our secret weapon. No, she’s our secret — I just hope they don’t change her. There are a lot of people that want to run her out. She’s really out there. And I’m supposed to make a deal with her?" God, he's such a fucking infected prickhole.

So when Trump called Democrats "un-American" for not applauding when he was giving "positive news" during the State of the Union, it was of a piece with other shit he was saying during the speech. And while the White House can attempt to spin his picking up the word "treasonous," from someone shouting it, as just "a joke," Trump sure as shit didn't sound like he was joking. (Now, craven brown nosers in the GOP caucus are lining up to join Trump in saying Democrats were at least un-American in not blindly clapping for an asshole who regularly pisses on anything they say or do.) But then he moved on to attacking Democrats directly: "They don’t care about the security of our country. They don’t care about MS-13 killers pouring into our country."

And we can roll our eyes and think that we've heard it all before. Except if we do that, then we accept that this is the way our politics will be, that this is what a president should be allowed to get away with. The man called half of the Congress un-American and traitorous people who want murderer immigrants to come to the United States. Earlier in the day yesterday, he tweeted that Rep. Adam Schiff "Must be stopped!" This is dangerous shit to tell a nation where a good third of the adult population actually believes Trump's shit-river of lies and provocation, a nation that is buried in guns. The President of the United States is declaring that one of the political parties is filled with enemies of the country simply because they don't worship him like the Republicans do. That shit is new. Other presidents may have thought that, but in public they always talked about respecting the other side, even if they disagreed. You can wave it off or say the honesty is refreshing, but the world doesn't fucking function if leaders don't know how to shut the fuck up.

And, besides, since when do we have to fuckin' clap for anyone or anything? Fuck that shit.

Let's end here with one of those absurd, over-the-top Trump moments that often get overlooked because he's constantly engaged in seditious speech. Talking about opioid addiction and drug abuse in general, Trump really said, "You know, one drug dealer can kill thousands of people. One drug dealer. If you ever did an average — nobody has ever seen this, you’ve probably never heard this before — but if you ever did an average, a drug dealer will kill thousands of people." Now, likely, he meant one head of a cartel, but it sure sounds like he thinks some corner dealer is responsible for the deaths of thousands. And if you've never seen this before, it's because it's not true.

And no president was ever such a extravagant liar that they would try to tell you that it's true. But you can bet that millions of Americans take it as gospel now.


David Brooks's Latest Column on Abortion, Corrected

(Note: I took David Brooks's completely idiotic anti-choice "column" today where he says that Democrats should give up on preventing a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, as if that would quell the anti-choice forces in this country, and I reverse engineered it. Brooks pretended that he was a Democratic consultant offering advice to the party. So I went Republican. It was ridiculously easy to write this from the opposing side.)

To: Republican Party Leaders

From: Imaginary Republican Consultant

Re: Late-Term Abortions

Dear Republican Leaders,

Last week I watched as our senators voted for the Republican bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks. Our people hung together. Only two Republicans voted with the other side. Yet as I was watching I kept wondering: How much is our position on late-term abortions hurting us? How many conservative priorities are we giving up just so we can have our way on this one?

Let me start with some history. Before Roe. v. Wade, the abortion debate looked nothing like it does today. Many leading pro-choice groups were on the right. In 1972, 68% of Republicans supported the position that "the decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician." Only 59% of Democrats held that opinion. The Republican Party platform for the 1972 not only did not mention "abortion," it had support for affirmative action and the Equal Rights Amendment.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade changed all this. Still, even as anti-feminists like Phyllis Schlafly gained prominence, as late as 1975, Betty Ford, then First Lady, could go on 60 Minutes and say, "I feel very strongly that it was the best thing in the world when the Supreme Court voted to legalize abortion and, in my words, bring it out of the backwoods and put it in the hospitals where it belonged. I thought it was a great, great decision."

But then everything polarized. The pro-life movement grew on the right, and the Democratic Party embraced Planned Parenthood and the pro-choice movement. Republicans introduced an anti-abortion plank into their platform in 1976, while the Democrats merely mentioned that they did not want a new constitutional amendment banning abortion. Still, a new electoral coalition was born.

The Democratic Party became an alliance between its traditional pro-business wing and its burgeoning pro-choice wing. Millions of Americans became single-issue voters. They consider the right of women to control their bodies the great ethical issue of our time. Without pro-choice voters, Bill Clinton never would have been elected. Without single-issue voters who wanted pro-choice judges, there would never have been a President Barack Obama.

I understand that our donors (though not necessarily our voters) want to eliminate a woman’s right to choose at any point in her pregnancy. But do we want to end abortion rights so much that we are willing to tolerate another Democratic president? Do we want it so much that we may very well lose our congressional majorities? Do we want it so much that we see our agendas on immigration, regulatory reform, and repealing Obamacare thwarted and defeated?

Let’s try to imagine what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned. The abortion issue would go back to the states. The Center for Reproductive Rights estimates that roughly 21 states would outlaw abortion. Abortion would remain legal in probably 20 others. There’s a good chance that a lot of states would arrest anyone performing abortions, possibly even arresting women who try to get them. On top of that, many women would be harmed by trying to self-induce or going to unlicensed places in order to get an abortion. We know this is true because it is already happening in places that have severely restricted abortion rights, like Texas.

The pro-choice movement would be forced to turn its attention away from national elections. Single-issue pro-choice voters would become involved in local races and swarm to the Democratic Party. The abortion debate would become even more divisve as pro-life politicians are portrayed as harming women.

Roe v. Wade polarized American politics in ways that have been fundamentally bad for Republicans. If you don’t believe me, compare the size of the elected Republican majorities in 1995 to the size of the Democratic majorities in 2008. Without Roe v. Wade the landscape would shift. Yes, there have been short-term benefits in some races, but support for abortion has remained consistently above 50% in the United States.

We need to acknowledge our vulnerability here. Republicans support an end to all abortions, with a few exceptions, and especially abortions in the third trimester. But only 1% of all abortions take place after 20 weeks, and a large number are for medical reasons. As for the argument that babies can live outside the womb after 20 weeks, as Robin Marty writes in Cosmopolitan, "It is a ban on abortion at the very cusp of viability, at a point when only a 'tiny minority' of those who are born at that gestation and medically treated will survive without severe medical conditions."

We learn talking to women who have had third trimester abortions that it is not a decision taken lightly. Research has shown that while some third trimester abortions are for reasons of fetal anomalies or the mother's health, many occur at 20 weeks or later because of the lack of access to abortion services available for women, restrictions that Republicans have supported for the last several decades. It could be that one of the current behaviors that future generations will regard as most barbaric is our treatment of women.

We also shouldn’t take millennial voters for granted. Boomers saw the pro-choice movement as integral to their feminism. Millennials share this attitude. A recent Pew poll found that 65% of Americans age 18-29 believe that abortion should be legal in "all/most cases," the most of any age group. Even more striking, only 33% of 18-29 year-olds believe that abortion should be illegal in "all/most cases." And while polls suggest that a majority supports a ban on abortions after 20 or 22 weeks, a poll in 2016 found that a clear majority supported abortions at up to 24 weeks if a child is likely to be born with defects due to the Zika virus. So it seems that this is an issue that people are still confused on.

I’m asking us to rethink our priorities. What does America need most right now? One of our talking points is that late-term abortions are morally wrong. But if there are other things we believe are morally wrong, why are we giving abortion priority over all of our other issues combined?


Your Imaginary Consultant