Brave Leftist Firebrand Not Punished by Leftist Network

I have more than one thing to talk about today, so I plan to ramble and digress. This will be a major shock to people who have been reading this blog for a while.

I hate to follow with another shock, but here it is: Stephen Colbert, the late night host who used broadcast TV to direct obscene insults at the president of the United States, is NOT in trouble with his network. I repeat, he is NOT in trouble. He has not been fired. He has not been suspended. The FCC is not up in arms. There have been no marches.

I don’t know about you, but I’m floored. The left’s impeccable history of “fair-mindedness” (a term Colbert likes) and willingness to police itself has been tarnished. Boycott Colbert! Boycott CBS! Boycott everything! Because if we do that, we know they’ll admit fault and do the right thing.

Yes. That will happen.

Made myself laugh.

Evil is predictable. The more evil is tolerated, the more predictable it gets, because people stop trying to be subtle. They don’t care if they get caught.

Colbert is, of course, highly apologetic. He apologized by making gloating jokes about how he was “still the host.” He also said it was fair to insult Trump, because Colbert’s weapons were jokes and Trump has the nuclear launch codes.

Again, I think Colbert is writing his own material. Maybe this is a good thing. If his head gets big enough, maybe he’ll can his capable writers and insist on using his own jokes until his ratings reach Chevy Chase levels.

In case he reads this blog, I’m going to provide some useful information. Under current laws, and perhaps tragically, the president can’t actually nuke comedians. Nuclear weapons, to paraphrase the late Graham Chapman, are what scientists call “very large.” If Trump nuked Colbert’s trillion-dollar penthouse, there would almost certainly be damage to neighboring apartments, in that the buildings containing them would be turned into hot plasma, along with much of the granite of the underlying island. That would never fly with most of the Joint Chiefs.

In a way, Colbert’s clumsy, ill-premised rationalization has increased my admiration for him. If he really believes he’s risking nuclear annihilation every time he made a Trump joke, he must be one of the bravest men alive. Think how relieved he would be to know he’s in the clear. Maybe he and Jon Stewart are serious about holing up in an off-grid cabin in an undisclosed location. If I were afraid my own president would scorch me like a gnat on a bug-zapper, I’d be hiding out, too.

He’s not really brave. You don’t have to be brave to parrot the beliefs of the people who let you keep your high-paying job. Dissent is the thing that takes courage. Charlton Heston was brave, and James Woods is brave. Colbert is hiding deep in the nurturing bulk of a like-minded and highly protective herd.

You don’t really need to prove it’s fair to criticize the president. Everyone already knew it was fair, and we have a Constitutional Amendment that makes it legal. I haven’t argued a Constitutional question before a judge in quite a while, but I think I’m on firm ground when I say that if Trump decided to nuke late night comedians, he would be barred by the left’s second-least-favorite amendment, i.e., the First.

No one questioned the fairness of insulting Trump. They questioned the willingness of a TV network to use public airwaves to broadcast schoolyard filth. Colbert knows fairness was never at issue. He just wants to steer the conversation into an alternate universe in which the dispute is one in which he isn’t clearly, indefensibly wrong.

Has anyone else noticed that Colbert and Trump are a lot alike? Neither one can acknowledge error. Both are thin-skinned. Both talk without thinking. Both have mammoth egos. They’re made for each other.

I said Colbert was not going to get in trouble, based on my knowledge of leftist hypocrisy, and of course, I was right. Here’s another thing I was apparently right about: it looks like Barack Obama is gay.

Stephen Colbert must be furious at him.

In a new biography by journalist David Garrow, it is claimed that a young Obama wrote of considering a homosexual liaison with college professor Lawrence Goldwyn. Note that the allegation isn’t that someone else said Obama was gay; it’s that Obama himself wrote about it.

Obama could not get into a good college on the first try, so before he transferred to Columbia College, where he became part of my class, he attended Occidental University. There he became close with Goldwyn. Here is a money quote from Garrow:

Three years later, Obama wrote somewhat elusively to his first intimate girlfriend that he had thought about and considered gayness, but ultimately had decided that a same-sex relationship would be less challenging and demanding than developing one with the opposite sex. . .

This is interesting for more than one reason.

Obama is the gay marriage president. In order to get himself elected, he lied and said he opposed gay marriage. When he realized revealing his true position couldn’t hurt him (Colbertian bravery!), he admitted he was for it. He then violated his oath of office by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Now that we know he’s gay, who can be surprised?

The story is also interesting because there have always been rumors about Obama’s sexual orientation. People say he frequented gay sex clubs in Chicago, for example. After he became a presidential candidate, we didn’t hear much about that. Is that because the rumors weren’t true or because leftists wanted to hide the truth from the public?

Similarly, the Garrow biography, which is clearly unflattering in some regards, didn’t appear until Obama was out of office. Why is that? What if it had popped up in August of 2012? Things might be different today. Romney might have won, and we might be in the middle of his reign. It could have kept Trump out of the White House and helped prevent an atmosphere of leftist hatred and violence from arising so soon.

Did Garrow withhold the book in order to help Obama? What about his publisher? No, things like that don’t happen. No journalist or publisher would put the advancement of leftism above professional ethics. Ask Dan Rather.

I’m sure SJW’s are “correcting” people like me who assert that Obama is gay. They’ll say considering a homosexual relationship isn’t proof of homosexuality. Well, it is. A heterosexual would be repelled by the idea. It’s a desire that can’t arise in the heterosexual consciousness. It’s like hating liver and saying to yourself, “I think I may want to start eating liver.” A man who isn’t gay can’t be excited by the prospect of sex with other men. Obama may be bisexual, and people may say that’s not gay, but “gay” is part of “bisexual,” so…he’s gay. Unless Garrow made the letter up.

Obama is a minor figure now, so it probably doesn’t matter whether he’s popular or not, but I expect his popularity to increase now that he has been outed. Leftists will see him as a victim, and that’s something that always appeals to them. Gays will see him in a new and exciting way; he won’t be unattainable any more. One wonders if he’ll leap out of the closet on a talk show, to riotous applause. “Look how we fooled them.”

If Obama comes out on The Late Show, I assume Colbert will be gentle.

It’s hard for Obama to offend his fans. He took $400,000 for a short speech, which should have thrown his socialist minions into spasms of faux-ascetic outrage, but it blew over in a day. He might be able to upset them if he really tried, though. He could try going to a real church or getting a pistol permit.

He’s about to get $60 million for writing a book. I hope Bill Ayres does a good job. Last time around, Obama insulted the white grandmother who saved him from rejection and brought him up as her own, while praising the black bigamist deadbeat dad who abandoned him. I wonder if he can top that feat of betrayal, racism, and tone deafness.

The playing field is so slanted these days; one wonders if there is any point at all in registering to vote or speaking one’s views. The left owns entertainment and the press. A big percentage of Americans are now convinced that worshiping the God of love, who let himself be tortured to death for our sake, makes you an evil person. We can’t win any more. The machine is programmed to destroy us.

We think we won the presidential election, and we’re excited to see Republicans do well in state contests, but come on. Are the people in Congress really conservative or God-fearing? In 1960, they would have been considered leftist nuts. Trump, who lost the popular vote, is good on some issues but bad on others, and he may get so crazy he repeats George Bush’s sin: he may make people ashamed to vote for Republican presidents for a couple of election cycles. Most of the people we elect to state office are weak conservatives, and anyway, the states have no power. Centralized government is a reality, and eventually it will be written into law.

What we need is divine help. It would be nice if we had a few prominent preachers teaching us how to be powerful, but we don’t. The Pope teaches legalism mixed with paganism, and Catholicism is the biggest Christian denomination in America. Big-time Protestant ministries teach people God will make them rich if they send preachers money, and that doesn’t work. Almost no one is teaching real repentance, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, prayer in tongues, casting out spirits, or how to live in the presence of God. To make things worse, Christians angrily defend the wolves that eat their flesh and make them weak.

On a national level, things aren’t looking too good, except to the gullible, but individuals can still be saved. Until this mess wraps up, I plan to sit on the sidelines and enjoy the show as well as I can.