Fishnet Friday

Ukraine Deploys Gay Army to Stave Off Russians Invasion

Middle Finger News Service

(Kiev) - Ukraine is planning to deploy large numbers of  flamboyantly gay men along the border with Crimea in hopes of scaring off Russian soldiers currently preparing to enter the territory.

According to our sources, this “gay army” will be armed only with Glow-in-the-Dark Dildos and Multi-Caliber Butt Plugs.  Their mission will be to act as flamboyantly homosexual as possible causing the homophobic Russian Army to flee back to its homeland.

A military spokesman in Kiev told MFNS:

“Ukraine is a small country. We don’t have a lot of tanks or battleships. And we stupidly gave up our nuclear weapons in the 1990s. But we still have plenty of gays, and if there is one thing Russians fear more than atomic warfare it’s explicit displays of homosexuality.

“It will start small. Just a simple show along the border with a few hundred shirtless men. But once the Lady Gaga starts blasting, things are gonna get wild. Hopefully all the pumping, grinding and gyrating will have them headed back to Moscow."

Russian soldiers have occupied the Crimean peninsula following a revolution in Ukraine which swept a pro-European government to power.  Moscow claims it is simply safeguarding the interests. But interviews with the occupying forces suggest that Ukraine's new strategy just might do the trick. "I can take bullets. I can take bombs. but if I have to watch gay people prance along the border all day, I’m going home" said Russian soldiers we talked to.

Recruitment for the campaign has reportedly been strong, with nearly half of Kiev's gay male community signed up for the patriotic task of defending Ukraine from aggression.   Victor, a 34-year-old hairdresser told us, "My partner and I are marching together and we're bringing a full set of butt plugs. I can't wait."

The Loony Left

"It is a world of opposites where progressive is regressive.

It is the land of Cheech and Chong."

by Sam Huntington

No one I know on the right believes that capitalism is perfect. No one I know on the right thinks that our economy should operate without any regulation or oversight. What we do believe on the right is that they, who govern least, govern best. And while I think there should be oversight, we should pay as much attention to those who are doing the oversight, as we are to those whose corporate behaviors we intend to monitor. I am confounded by the fact that placing government in an oversight role is akin to hiring a fox to guard the hen house.

But what is it, exactly, that the leftist believes about the economy? There are several variables, of course. Some of these people are Keynesian ideologues who dream about a welfare state through industrial democracy. Others believe government should nationalize the economy and govern through central planning. One might recall that the Soviet Union tried central planning, too. Yet, some on the American left persist. It is the classical demonstration of insanity—at least according to Albert Einstein. Still other leftists are anarchist communists. Amazingly, while many of these people denounce globalization, they seek to impose it through their illogical support of the United Nations.

Still other leftists advocate in favor of Marxian economies. They seek to make a distinction between Marx the philosopher, and Marx the economist. I suspect they do this in order to mask their goal of imposing communism on the rest of us. It is convoluted even for leftists, which is why I think they frequently do not make any sense. They regurgitate the talking points, but they have no idea what the hell these words mean.

And then we are blessed with the left-libertarian, libertarian socialists, and the outright anarchists, who demand a decentralized economy run by trade unions, worker’s councils, and cooperatives —people I like to think of as fascists in mufti. Leftist will argue that a society without substantial equality will distort the development of not only deprived persons, but also those who privileges undermine motivation and their sense of social responsibility. It is a collectivist mentality, and might I add, the bane of a free society—for whom better to dictate to everyone else than the leftist with all the best ideas?

Ah, but there’s the catch. Leftist ideas are not the best ideas; among clear-thinking people, they are unfathomable. Who but a mentally deficient person can prefer regulation in place of free markets, or bureaucracies more than corporations, or government controlled insurance plans, rather than private insurances, and more government control over the economy rather than less.

We do have to acknowledge the consistency of the American left, however, for in spite of all that history tells us about the failure of communism and socialism in the 20th Century, American leftists remain committed to irrational notions. Still, we must remind ourselves that it was not an easy task to produce such troglodytes: it has taken more than three generations to brainwash these people. As we have seen, leftists live in a bizarre world. It is a world of opposites where progressive is regressive. It is the land of Cheech and Chong.

Listen carefully now; you may even hear the leftist protestations in the background. “The state of our economy proves that we need more government, not less.” Except that it was government that placed us in this position to begin with. At best, George Bush had it only half right. Reducing taxes is a good thing, but not while increasing government spending. Compassionate George seemed incapable of understanding that if taxation is a tourniquet around the neck of a robust economy, government spending is a gunshot wound to the head.

I personally think Milton Friedman had some very good ideas about free market capitalism, but I do not think he had all the answers. The problem is that, looking around, there is no one on the other side of this argument that can compete with Friedman. So where are all of those good ideas from the left? Answer: there are no good ideas on the left. If anything, leftist economic policy has made things worse —much worse.

When government policy seeks to diminish capital investments, no one in a proper mental state will want to risk their capital. Without capital, businesses cannot remain competitive. A non-competitive business is only a few steps away from closing its doors. This doesn’t matter to leftists, however. What matters is that government regulates businesses —for their own good.

Still, our topic is far too complex for the space allocated to a blog post. For example, we have not even touched upon corrupt government, which forces corporations to find some way of profiting within a sullied framework. If businesses want to survive in a corrupt environment, they have to find some way of accommodating the devil; and they do find ways.

Our question to the leftist provocateur remains: who will hire American workers when government bureaucracy replaces the American corporation? Who will pay salaries when businesses have been taxed or regulated out of existence? When businesses fold, when workers are unemployed, when the US no longer manufactures anything, when the economy is destroyed (we’re close to that now), then who will carry the tax burden for the United States?

 Oops. I guess the left didn’t think about that.  

(Always on Watch)

Looking For A Clue.....

Nuking Politics

It was said that in about 400 BC Diogenes walked around the marketplace in Athens carrying a lamp, looking for an honest man. It was a complete waste of time, and I suppose he intended it as political commentary, but at least he didn't bother trying it in DC…. 

Obama has a very busy schedule. When he isn't golfing, vacationing, or attending A-list fundraisers, he's hard at work on foreign policy, the economy, or social inequality. At least that's what Jay Carney says. And somehow in the midst of it all, he finds time for late night comedy spots like the appalling example here.

Considering that his efforts in those areas are all colossal failures, what he needs to do is find some time to search, not for an honest man, but for a clue. Any clue. About anything.

The problem with that is this: Before someone sees the need to look for a clue, they must first acknowledge that they in fact need one. That would suggest that they already have one, because they're aware that something they're doing needs improvement. That kind of humility isn't something Mr Obama appears to be capable of.

Maybe if he ever finds one, he'll share it with his pals in DC, and with the people in the country who still support him.

I've Got Friends in Low Places

Dancing Madly Backwards

The Looking Spoon

Well, A Lot of People Do Laugh at Him.......

ABC Reporter Worries Whether Constitution Allows President To Be Interviewed By Comedians

ABC News Professional Journalist Jim Avila had some very serious questions for White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today about Barack Obama’s brief interview with comedy (?) human Zach Galifianakis. Avila seemed really worried about it, if none too lucid: 

“How much discussion was there in the White House about the dignity of the office and whether or not, in order to reach these people who don’t watch us at 6:30, or who don’t watch this briefing … how much the dignity of the office might be lost? This is an interview like no other probably ever done by a president.”

Good question! After all, the website is called “Funny or Die,” and if people didn’t laugh, might not Obama die? But Carney simply noted that the webcast appearance was a chance to “reach Americans who don’t necessarily get information about HealthCare.gov from evening news broadcasts or from the newspapers.” 

As for the  the dignity of the office, you gotta be kidding, right? This is Barack Obama your talking about here. Still, Avila was not reassured, and asked again, “I understand the purpose, but was the presidency in any way damaged?”

But this is a serious question from a serious journalist,
and deserves a completely serious answer.