In Chicago, The Poor Can’t Afford To Defend Themselves

At long last, police superintendent Garry McCarthy is facing significant heat for the ridiculous crime rate in the city of Chicago, with numerous high-ranking city voices calling out loudly for his firing. Is CPD Supt McCarthy as incompetent as his critics say? Actually, no—he’s a very good cop. But he’s a political moron, who does exactly what his liberal progressive masters tell him to do. And that’s why he’s in trouble for it.

Of course, had he shown the spine necessary to be the top cop in a city headed toward disaster, he’d never have been hired. His interview process probably began with two questions: “Are you a Democrat? Will you play ball with the party/” Who knows—he probably foresaw a possible political future beyond this one day, especially with the popularity Rahm Emanuel once had as mayor.

But ultimately, Supt. McCarthy is just a carny suckering voters in. And his record shows it: a 21% increase in murders when, nationally, violent crime rates are dropping like a stone. And McCarthy has denied the evidence that widening the spread of private firearm carrying will lower crime rates—not because he has counter-evidence that would surprise everybody, but because his Democrat overlords have told him what to say.

And so Chicago has some of the worst neighborhoods in America: North Lawndale on the West side, Washington Park, Englewood, and Gresham on the South, where more people get shot in a weekend than will ever be victims at some place of education.

Guess what else, besides an obscenely high rate of violent crimes, these neighborhoods have in common? They are among the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago, as if—by magic—there’s some link between economic deprivation and violent crime. This is important because of why some Chicago neighborhoods have very little crime—access to firearms.

For the longest time, handguns (and to be fair, nearly any other kind of firearm) were strictly prohibited in the city, and things got really bad. Then, as you all recall, the Supreme Court handed down a couple of important decisions that struck the ban on handguns in the city. And crime rates for many neighborhoods plunged, specifically for those crimes easily resolved by defensive use of a handgun.

So why not these neighborhoods? Why did these get worse? The answer is the cost.

Oh, you can have a gun in the City of Chicago. First, though, you need to get the firearm owner’s identification card (the FOID), which shows a gun seller that you have had a full background check and can legally purchase a weapon. Then there’s the weapon: a decent handgun will run you between $500 – $600, not including ammunition and a holster (which could be had for little extra).

Now you can purchase a firearm and keep it in your house, where no one gets shot. To bring it out on your front porch or down the street, where it’ll do some good, you need the concealed carry license. This costs $300, and requires 16 hours of training. By the way—that training? Can be anywhere from a couple hundred to almost a grand.

So if you’re an impoverished Chicagoan who wants to take back the neighborhood for decent folks in the fastest way possible—an armed and defensively ready neighborhood—be ready for a few neighbors to shell out about $2,000 each. That might be a monster-sized chunk of your annual income in those neighborhoods, but you can do it, right? After all, the super-trendy neighborhoods in Chicago all did it. Maybe you could stop blowing your cash on stupid stuff like kale, arugula pesto, and tawny ports, Greshamites. Maybe you Englewood residents could have your kids not attend Minecraft camp for one summer, like the folks in the upscale Beverly community did?

The Democrats running Chicago have a problem, but it’s not Garry McCarthy. It’s in their policies. The next top cop—assuming they hire another party loyalist—will fare even worse. And when movies like Chiraq underscore how bad your policies are, to where you try to censor the title, the harder it will be to run from them. Ask Detroit. No one wonders how Detroit got so bad.

Administrative Memo

Due to the installation of newer carpeting in the Castle Gormogon’s Human Resources department, please be advised that from October 6—October 10, all Gormogon human resources matters will be conducted from our Alternate Secret Headquarters of Doom location, at Westmoreland Mall next to the Mattress Giant.


Operative B writes in with some salience about the carpet in here. He also mentions some other things.

O Dread One!

This lowly minion comes before you on hands and knees (by the way, you need new carpeting in front of your throne – just a thought…) to ask whether these folks from Syria (and elsewhere), who call themselves refugees, really understand the meaning of the word.

A refugee is someone who is fleeing a regime to avoid persecution. By definition, refugees are not fleeing to a new country in order to institute the same regime and to put in place the same persecution they are fleeing from.

Previous refugees to this country, the majority of whom came from countries whose religions – and whose religious teachings – were generally in harmony with the Constitution and US law, did not bring with them a desire to change the US into the regime they were fleeing from. Example: how many Cuban refugees wanted to build a communist regime here in the US? Even the majority of illegal entrants from the southern border of the US have a common set of morals and values to those of most Americans.

However, refugees fleeing the Middle East bring with them a different set of religious teachings, and a set of laws – Sharia – which are incompatible with the Constitution and the core basis of US law. As a proven matter of fact, Sharia violates several of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights (no, I won’t repeat those difference here), and its structure is in direct contradiction with the concepts of freedom and free choice upon which the US was built.

Your Majesty, this miserable one – who is the grandchild of refugees from Eastern Europe – does not wish to close the door to legitimate refugees: those who are fleeing a regime for the freedom provided to those who live in the United States. However, we must also be sure that our “open door” immigration policy cannot be abused by those who enter this country with ulterior motives.

In order to qualify as legitimate refugees, refugees from Middle East countries with Islamic-based regimes should be required to forswear any allegiance to the regime they are fleeing from as a condition of entry to this country.

In case you had forgotten, the oath taken by citizens requires this exactly:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

It is time that the US require a similar pre-citizenship oath for those who enter this country as refugees, with the punishment for violation of that oath being a very simple one: expulsion to the regime that the refugee came from, with nothing but the clothes on his/her back, exactly as they came here. They forfeit anything they accumulated while here, since they accumulated it under false pretenses: they never really intended to assimilate into the US and adopt its laws and precepts.

Requirement of a pre-immigration oath is not cruel or unusual. Nor is it difficult to administer this oath while fingerprinting and registering the refugee upon entry to this country.

On the contrary: it would be cruel and unusual for these new immigrants to force an anti-Constitutional set of laws on existing residents here in the US. It would be cruel and unusual – and unConstitutional – for the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States to permit Sharia law to replace existing law.

And, aside from all of the boasting and “big talk”, this lowly one fears that the wholesale adoption or attempted adoption of Sharia law, a set of behavioral requirements that is totally foreign to American values, and forced upon The People without their consent by The Government, could be the first step toward an upheaval that could tear this country apart.

As the Czar has opined before, the media is very much an ongoing cut-and-paste narrative of the Left.

The Left has little interest in specific definitions for any of these terms:

  • Refugee
  • Immigrant
  • Displaced Person
  • Alien
  • Guest Worker
  • Migrant
  • Fugitive
  • Illegal

To the Left, they all mean the same thing: a person from some other place. You, of course, know the definitions of these and see some significant differences between all of them, not the least of which are political, social, cultural, and legal. An employer would, for example, not necessarily see a problem with an immigrant, but would see a problem with an illegal.

The Left has long advocated the elimination of national borders and countries. Heck, John Lennon even imagined some song lyrics to that effect. No, the Czar doesn’t mean the opening of borders to make traffic flow from America to Mexico—he means the Left wants to eliminate ideas like America and Mexico.

It explains everything from NAFTA—in some ways an experimental subsystem—to the idea of Aztlan, because what the hell. And it’s true in Europe: from the idea of the Euro (which erases local currencies and the inherent advantages of free market currency exchange) to the forced relocation of Syrians to wherever they want to go. Because to a Leftist, going from Syria to Portugal is like riding light rail to the end of the line: just get off wherever you want.

The Left wants to see the world as one undifferentiated landmass, all one color on a three-color map. Of course, this is erroneous and ultimately disastrous thinking, but when you’ve been advocating the workers of the world to unite—today it’s termed multiculturalism—you tend to forget the warnings of every competent philosopher about the fallacies of moral relevance. It’s why the Left can rail on Dr. Ben Carson about his horrifying comments that Muslim presidents without ever bothering to check with a Muslim to see if Islam prohibits it. Everything and everyone, in their imagination, is just the victim of white, colonial imperialism. And indeed they are the best at white, colonial imperialistic attitudes that white, rich guys ought to help the weak little women and the teeny brownskins to morph into liberal progressive soldiers.

There are two ideas that will block your theory. First, the Left won’t agree to it simply because a pre-immigration oath makes no sense to them. Why force “people from some other place” to swear momentary allegiance to America, which is nothing more than a tired, old heteronormative oppressor? Now, if you suggested that these incoming folks swear allegiance to the Left—or at least allow them to register for the Democrats—they’d be all over that.

Second, there’s the other political side of the coin. Who is an immigrant? Who is a refugee? The former should be streamlined into the path of legal citizenship without waiting for a frustrating number of years, delays, and red tape. The latter owes no allegiance to America because—in theory—once their homelands get their crap together, the refugees are going right back home. Again, in theory.They’re like guest workers without jobs.

Ultimately, the Czar suspects you want them to promise not to blow up or kill Americans, and we get that. A properly functioning State Department could—if it weren’t so busy arguing over parental definitions—would be able to process all these incomers into their proper categories. Plan to stay until things cool down at home? Fine, we’re restricting your movements and keeping you under eye. Want to become a US citizen? It’ll take 6 months to work out who you are, where you propose to work, and how you’ll assimilate. Want to work a bit, make some cash, and go back home? Fill all this out so we collect taxes. Want to freeload for a bit, pocket some cash, and not pay taxes? No problem, just get on this bus back home.

The Czar really doesn’t have much interest in refugees, truth be told—they don’t need to come to America at all, unless they’re fleeing from Canada or Mexico. But he feels great pain for the immigrants who come here, want to be Americans, want to work hard, pay taxes, and play by the rules—and who get bumped repeatedly to the back of the line because our liberal State Department is jerking them around to prohibit them from becoming voting Republicans.

Apparently it’s not enough we make our elected leaders swear an oath of allegiance. That doesn’t seem to be working, either.

Pontificating on the Pontiff

18819302-standardI have to admit that this week has been inspiring.  My Facebook feed hasn’t been filled with garbage – only positive stories and experiences.  I’m sure between John Boehner’s resignation, more Clinton emails being released, and something that Trump did or said will dominate the upcoming news cycle.  I’m sure, in addition, we’ll get a flurry of all the liberal things that the Pope supposedly supports – we’ll hear about how we need to act on climate change….or how our immigration policy is wrong, etc.

But, a true measure of the news outlets will be how many of the following items will be covered or mentioned in their post-Pope Francis visit coverage:

  • In the Pope’s first speech after arriving, he remarked: “With countless other people of good will, they are likewise concerned that efforts to build a just and wisely ordered society respect their deepest concerns and the right to religious liberty. That freedom reminds one of America’s most precious possessions.  And, as my brothers, the United States Bishops, have reminded us, all are called to be vigilant, precisely as good citizens, to preserve and defend that freedom from everything that would threaten or compromise it.”  Hmm, I wonder what the Holy Father could be referencing?
  • Pope Francis also made a few references to “subsidiarity” – in particular with regards to the illegal immigration issue.  It’s a term many aren’t familiar with but is core to the Church’s teaching.  Subsidiarity is a principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority,  I wonder how much attention that will get?
  • He did get into the whole climate change debate but be mindful of his words, he called for “a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all.”  Not the silencing of people questioning the data, its handling, or the analytical methods.
  • And then there is this comment by the Holy Father: “Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life.”

I’m proud to be a Catholic in America and very thankful that I was blessed with this life.  I’m encouraged by Pope Francis’ visit and hope that the coverage treats Catholicism fairly.

How to Inflate a Cat in 2 Easy Steps!

The Czar had this unsigned message hurled into the head of a Tcho-Tcho, as a brick carefully tied to a piece of paper. More curiously, the note was scrawled onto the brick; the paper was blank. Perhaps an atavistic envelope?

We are hearing from McConnell and Co. that they aren’t willing to defund Planned Parenthood because they don’t have the votes to overcome a Presidential veto. This reminds me of a situation of my West Texas Church back in 80’s

At that point in time, every church in the windy plains of West Texas had to have a gym building. There were people in my church who wanted one. There was controversy and dissension and when it finally came to a vote, the pro-gym people won with 51% of the vote. What do you think happened? The 51% came forth and said they couldn’t allow their church to be torn apart because of a 2% plurality.

I think that is a great American instinct. We don’t make decisions with just a bare majority. Counting noses is one thing, but in the end, we value a real consensus more than a narrow victory. I think this another great tradition that the Democrats have managed to kill off. The era when we can hold off on legislation until a clear and commanding consensus can be reached is gone. If Republicans can’t get used to making moves based on a bare majority, they are turning the field over the people who are willing take advantage the mathematics of a 2% plurality. They say that wars are lost because of generals who insist on using tactics that won them the last war. I think the grassroots have every reason in the world to be disappointed and angry with a leadership that is too dense to realize that rules have changed.

Who doesn’t love the idea of a massive win? But if the R’s insist on that, there will be lots of little losses, and very few big wins. Our country just can’t afford that at this point. And there is no guarantee that the Democrats will end up winning except in the imaginations of our own leadership.

This is a very interesting tale, and should be cautionary. As you suspected, the Czar agrees that this anecdote is illustrative of our diminished collective state of political sensibility.

It’s easier than it should be to attribute things you like to your political preference, and assign the “other side” to the, well, other side. But it indeed the case that the Czar has seen this exact confusion play out over many decades.

Conservatives in this country tend to understand that the United States is a republic. You elect others to vote on your behalf. If you don’t like how they voted, it’s a matter of replacing them with someone who is more inclined to represent you. As a congressperson once told the Czar, representing everyone is an impossible job—you try to represent as many people as you can. In other words, 2% is not enough clearance. Maybe we should talk further.

Liberals, as much as they tolerate democracy in lieu of totalitarianism, persist in the illusion that the United States is a democracy, and that everything is a referendum. Gore should be president because he won the popular vote. Obamacare is the law because it won by a single vote. Abortion is legal because less than 51% of the country is against it. In other words, if your side wins 50.0001% of the vote, it’s effectively a landslide and the losers need to drop dead.

The conservatives in our country are learning these lessons all to well as we re-ascend into the mainstream culture: the Czar has seen terrible disagreements between members of the Right, and he knows all too well that the 2% plurality could tear us apart, also. Your story is good—let us remain on guard and seek to build consensus, and not just subordination.

20 Catholic Questions: ‘Puter Sits Down With Meghan McCain

Ms. McCain sent ‘Puter this photo of herself after their Netflix and chill “date.” Man, ‘Puter wishes he weren’t such a heart breakers. It’s tough to let these young ladies down easy when they’ve fallen for him.

As you may have heard, Pope Francis arrived in the United States yesterday for his first visit. The Pope will visit Washington, Philadelphia, and New York City during his stay. As most newscasters have little to no comprehension of any religion, much less Catholicism, they’ve been searching out knowledgeable Catholics to provide commentary and insight during the Pope’s tour of (Mid-Atlantic, East Coast) America.

Imagine ‘Puter’s surprise when Fox News’ own Meghan McCain called ‘Puter an asked if ‘Puter had time for an interview on Catholicism! Naturally, ‘Puter said yes, as he has a thing for dumb, zaftig blondes. What follows is the unedited transcript of the interview, airing tonight on The Sean Hannity Show!*

Meghan McCain: Hi, ‘Puter! Where should we set up?

‘Puter Gormogon: Let’s set up in my rumpus room in the basement. Would you like something to drink? Sleestak makes a brilliant gin and SlimFast.

MM: How about a sparkling water? Got any of those?

PG: Sure. With or without rohypnol?

MM: Without, please.


Sleestak: Ssssss! Ssssssssssss! Ssss! *shambles off to parts unknown* *returns with drink* *gives to Ms. McCain* *waits around*

MM: Thank you, Sleestak. ‘Puter, what exactly *is* Sleestak?

PG: We’re not really sure. It’s a long story. By the way, nice tits.

MM: Thanks, ‘Puter! I like your orange leisure suit and purple ascot.

PG: Netflix and chill later, ba’e?

MM: Sure! That’d be great! But let’s get the interview done first. My dad’s not as famous as Chelsea Clinton’s dad, so I’m actually expected to turn in a work product.

PG: Alright. Just leave your underwear at home. Bring the camera though. ‘Puter’ll send Dat Ho to fetch you around 8:00 in the Castle’s Bugatti Veyron. He’ll be the diminutive Asian cussing up a storm driving a Bugatti Veyron.

MM: No problem. Let’s get the interview started, shall we?

PG: Sure. Go ahead. Did I mention I’ve got a thing for dumb, zaftig blondes with big cans and round badonkadonk?

MM: *giggles* Oh, ‘Puter. So, here we go. First question.

Q1:       Is the pope Catholic?

A:        No. The pope is Roman Catholic. If you’re not Roman Catholic, you’re going to Hell, heathen.

Q2:       Do Catholics worship Mary?

A:        Only Mary J. Blige, and it’s less “worship” and more “infatuation.”

Q3:       What’s the deal with the saints?

A:        ‘Puter knows, right? The Saints suck this year. Drew Brees is off his game, and the Saints defense leaks like a sieve.

Q4:       No, ‘Puter. I meant the saints as in “the communion of saints.”

A:        Oh, *those* saints. Saints are totally cool. They’re just people the Church says with certainty are in heaven. St. Sebastian got shot chock full of arrows and lived, so they bludgeoned him to death instead. St. Maria Goretti got stabbed 14 times and killed by a nobleman rather than submit to sex with him. Sort of the exact opposite of feminists today who think virginity and chastity are tools of the patriarchy used to dominate women. St. Lawrence of Rome was grilled to death, famously saying “I’m well done. Turn me over!” Not coincidentally, he’s the patron saint of comedians. True fact. Wait, what was the question again?

Q5:       Never mind, ‘Puter. Let’s talk about something else. Are Catholics really as heavy drinkers as they’re portrayed?

A:        Sorry. ‘Puter missed your question. He was out picking up his morning six-pack from the Knights of Columbus hall. The KofC usually give the post-bingo leftovers to the bums who hang out in the alley behind the bingo hall, and ‘Puter ain’t passing up no free beer! What’s the question again?

Q6:       I asked “are Catholics heavy drinkers,” but it appears you’ve answered in your own unique way.

A:        No, wait. ‘Puter’s got a good answer for that one. Here’s Pope Gregory IX (r. 1227-1241) responding to a query from the Archbishop of Trondheim:  “Since according to the Gospel teaching, a man must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, those are not to be considered validly baptized who have been baptized with beer.”

Q7:       Man, you Catholics are big drinkers.

A:        Did ‘Puter mention Jesus chose the creation of alcohol as his first miracle? Or that at Mass, Catholics believe sacramental wine literally becomes the blood of Christ? Transubstantiation, bitches!

Q8:       On that note, why do Catholics seem to cuss so much more than other Christians?

A:        F*ck off, Prod! What are you, a Unionist bastard? Ireland for the Catholics, Prods go home! Sod off, Royal Ulster Constabulary!

Q9:       Now that you mention it, I’ve always wondered how Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants tell each other apart. I mean, they’re all no good, soulless, dirt-burning, soulless Irish asshats, right?

A:        Good question. ‘Puter’s never figured that one out, either.

Q10:     Is that your real hair?

A:        What, are you mocking ‘Puter for being bald? The Sweet Baby Jesus in the Manger was bald! So was the Wee Baby Seamus!

Q11:     Man, this interview’s going far worse than I expected. Let’s get back on topic, ‘Puter. What’s the official honorific for the Pope?

A:        Some people will tell you it’s “Your Holiness.” Some people say it’s “Your Pope-itude.” ‘Puter believes either is acceptable. [Go with “Your Holiness” – ed.]

Q12:     What’s with kissing the Pope’s ring? That’s weird, isn’t it?

A:        Millions of New England Patriots fans kiss Bill Belichick and Tom Brady’s Super Bowl rings, and no one in the media thinks that’s weird, even though New England are proven cheating bastards who will burn in the unseen fires of Hell for all eternity! Wait, what were we talking about?

Q13:     Pope Francis. He’s an Argentine Jesuit. Can you tell us anything about the Jesuits?

A:        Well, ‘Puter was educated by Jesuits for eight years, so he knows a thing or two about Jesuits. First, Jesuits used to be awesome badasses, traveling the globe to spread the Gospel. St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Francis Xavier, and St. Pierre Lefevre were the original OJs [Original Jesuits – ed.]. These men were among the best the Church had to offer. Today, the Jesuits are more concerned with “social justice,” liberation theology, and preserving gay-themed colleges, universities, and seminaries.

Q14:     That’s a bit harsh, isn’t it, ‘Puter?

A:        Can the truth ever be harsh? Pope Francis is also an Argentine, which means he likes kickball [soccer – ed.], dumb economic policies, and cocaine. Wait, maybe not the last one. Maybe ‘Puter was thinking of Argentine Diego Maradona, who for most of his kickball [soccer –ed.] pretty much reenacted the scene from Scarface where Tony Montana goes face down into a giant pile of cocaine. Man, that was a good movie.

Q15:     ‘Puter, stay on topic.

A:        Oh, right. Pope Francis. Well, like most semi-commie, Jesuit Argentines, he likes walking, mostly because Argentina’s socialist/dictator-ist economic policies make cars and gasoline unaffordable for working folks. But now he’s got this totally bitchin’ Popemobile, with bulletproof glass, and Swiss Guard with the kung-fu grip, and a Trouble Pop-O-Matic bubble on the top so when you push it the Pope pops up in the air, and a giant Confederate battle flag painted on top. Wait, maybe not so much the last thing.

Q16:     Why do Catholics hate gay people and want to make them all have a sad and live in self-loathing and fear of religiously inspired random beatings?

A:        Thank you, Sugar Booty, for framing this question far more respectfully than most television journalists have. Catholics don’t hate gay people. The Catechism, paragraph 2358, instructs Catholics that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Plus, gay people are funny, throw the best parties, and make generally great neighbors.

Q17:     What about abortion? How come Catholics can’t just get with the times? Abortion’s the cool thing now. All the publicly funded “women’s health” centers are doing it, then selling the fetal organs for profit. Noted Catholics like Mario Cuomo, all 5,237 of the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are vocal proponents of abortion, mostly because it disproportionately kills of Black people. Plus, Pope Francis totally said abortion’s fine now! How cool is that?

A:        Um, not cool. Not cool at all. Since Roe v. Wade, abortion’s killed millions of Americans before they could draw their first breath. Planned Parenthood’s taken to killing Americans after they draw their first breath, supported with taxpayer dollars. The Cuomos, Clan Kennedy, Mrs. I Can’t Blink Pelosi and Handsy Uncle Joe Biden are nominal Catholics, more beholden to their religion of so-called progressivism than to the One True Church. As for their rationale (i.e., abortion disproportionately affects Blacks and minorities, as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger dreamed of), ‘Puter won’t comment on your characterization. Last, Pope Francis didn’t issue a new “WOO HOO! GO GIT ALL TEH ABORSHUNZ!!1!” edict. Pope Francis simply said during this declared year of mercy, parish priests may forgive the sin of abortion, undoing the woman’s (or the procurer’s) excommunication latae sententiae. It’s not a brave, new world of Church sponsored eugenics, much to the chagrin of liberal “Catholics.”

Q18:     Why did God make you, ‘Puter?

A:        God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with him forever in Heaven.

Q19:     “Through Christ our Lord,” or “forever and ever?”

A:        Amen.

Q20:     One last question, ‘Puter. If you could be a tree, what kind of tree would you be, and why?

A:        Well, my Zaftig Zeppelin of Love, I’d be a pecan tree so I could drop my nuts on you.

With that, the interview ended, and Ms. McCain packed up her gear and left. ‘Puter’s too much a gentleman to get into the oil-covered, hours-long details of his date with Ms. McCain later that night, though it was *awesome.*

Be sure to watch ‘Puter’s interview on Fox’s “The Idiot Captain Hairdo Show” “The Sean Hannity Show” tonight at 10:00 PM local time!

* Sean Hannity is dumb as a sack of hammers. He has stupid hair and supports Donald Trump. Hannity’s so all-in on Trump that he’s practically disqualified himself from the “serious newsman” category, as if there were such a thing. After Trump flames out spectacularly, ‘Puter expects to find Hannity wandering around the Times Square in a filthy, urine stained suit, clutching a Trump bobblehead, muttering softly to himself about what could’ve been, if only the American voter listened to him.

Dr. Carson Was Not In Error

Dr. Ben Carson was not wrong to say that a Muslim should not be put in charge of this nation.

He was wrong to answer the question in the first place, since it was clearly a ploy by an increasingly terrified media to make him look foolish at any cost. He was misguided to feed the subsequent frenzy by advising future presidents be sworn in on Bibles not Qur’āns, rather than challenge the media to engage him on matters of real substance, rather than gotcha-hypotheticals.

The media do seem to be backtracking, now that the initial orgy has subsided, by admitting there were numerous clarifying comments omitted from the discussion, and allowing him to consider the question in more detail when and if a Muslim runs for president.

But he wasn’t wrong: a Muslim should not be President of the United State, but not because of our biases, but because of his. The United States Constitution—as has been confirmed numerous times by Islamic experts—is incompatible with Šarīʿa, or shariya.

Islam, to be brief, does not allow one to pick and choose beliefs the way a liberal Christian can so easily (and readily) do. The degree to which you observe Šarīʿa, however, seems to be the difference between fundamentalist Islam, radical Islam, and mainstream Islam. In other words, jihâd is required; whether that’s tee-totaling in an increasingly party-oriented workplace or flying innocent civilians to their deaths in an airline, well, that’s dependent on how much you like living where you live.

But make no error: Šarīʿa doesn’t work with the Constitution of the United States. Allow the Czar to quote from Mark Spahn, of West Seneca, New York, who cites a “director of Islamic information” that 80% of the Constutuion is compatible with Šarīʿa:

The non-sharia-compliant 20 percent of the Constitution surely includes the Thirteenth Amendment (which abolishes possession by the right hand) and the Fourteenth Amendment (which gives kafirs equal legal status with Muslims), but it would be nice to have a complete list of which parts of the Constitution will need to be amended to bring it into full sharia compliance. For example, constitutional scholars will be curious about your views on the Ninth Amendment and its compatibility with the Islamic dictum that “none has the right to be worshipped but Allah alone….”

This is not exaggerated for comedic effect. Indeed, his examples are genuine points of concern in Islamic legal issues.

And how does the Left respond? By putting Huma Abedin out there to say:

Ms. Abedin’s patriotism is not the issue here, but her faith is. It is highly unlikely that reasonable numbers of Muslims look at her uncovered hair, unconventional lifestyle, marriage to a Jew, and so on, as proof of her Islamic pride. She is a highly visible apostate, and an apostate has no ability to comment on Šarīʿa. These are not our rules; these are Islam’s. Ms. Abedin is no more qualified to speak for Islam than we are.

Frankly, Ms. Abedin is better qualified to speak as an American. She is a successful, influential woman who married someone outside of her faith, and thinks for herself. There’s nothing more American than that. The Czar is curious if she really, if it came time to swing the lever, vote for a Muslim candidate that would seek to reverse her lifestyle to one compatible with Šarīʿa.

Our point is that she could do it if the candidate believed in equal rights for women, free expression of other religions, the rights of Jews, equal opportunity under the law, and all the things that made her successful. Of course, such a candidate would not be Muslim by any definition accepted by Islam.

Of course, Dr. Carson could have won a bunch of Trumpeters over by saying “Would I vote for a Muslim running for president? I didn’t the last two times.” We’d still be talking about that one.


Sciencey readers may have learned that giant exoplanet Beta Pictoris b has been photographed to unprecedented detail. Here is the picture of the world, about 63 light years away.


Anyway, thanks to the Gormogons’ proprietary super-advanced high-resolution image rendering algorithms, we were able to increase the resolution of this picture an astonishing 7000 percentages. This enabled us to (prospectively) map out its apparent surface features. Please refer to this map going forward.


Thoughts on the CNN Train wreck

kidsdebateMr. and Mrs. GorT watched about two-thirds of the second Republican debate last night.  We both found it amusing, insightful, and a bit of a train wreck.  GorT jumped on Twitter for a while – and his secondary processing unit actually hit 4% utilization to process the heavy volume on our twitter stream.  Below are a few of our thoughts and reactions from the event:

  1. Winner:  Carly Fiorina – she clearly set herself apart from the others.  She answered questions (with maybe one exception) well, steered the debate (see #4), stood fast against both the career politicians and Trump, and demonstrated her comprehension and position on a wide range of issues.  Chris Christie’s swipe at Trump and Fiorina’s back-and-forth over their corporate experience was aimed incorrectly – either by Christie or the subsequent interpretation – it was Jake Tapper and the CNN format that allowed that exchange.  Many of the politicians on the stage, including Christie, gave resume rundowns of what they did – including Christie.
  2. Loser: Donald Trump – Never answered any question with a substantive answer.  Repeatedly dove into petty jabs at his opponents.  And here’s a little tip to “the Donald” – we have a sitting president who wasn’t really up on everything, didn’t give a lot of specifics, and said he would assemble the best team to help him.  Hmmmm.
  3. Runner-up:  Marco Rubio – looked like a foreign policy rock-star.  He also steered clear of the mud-slinging for the most part.  His answers were clear and forceful.  Many tweets flew by on our feed touting an interest in a “Rubio/Fiorina” ticket for 2016.
  4. Most Embarrassed:  CNN and Jake Tapper – look, GorT knows that Tapper isn’t really a hard-left media figure so I’m not calling CNN and Tapper out on a bias issue.  The issue was the format and moderation (or lack thereof).
    • One minute for a thoughtful and complete answer to the types of questions that were asked was too short.  Some candidates appeared to either ignore or weren’t beholden to the one-minute window.
    • The questions were, like I think Rubio pointed out, like a scene out of Mean Girls when the GOP’s Burn Book gets revealed.  The candidates, in many cases, took the better path and turned to the questions’ subjects and ignored the personal attacks.
    • Mrs. GorT pointed out that many were sweating – likely poor air handling under the bright (and hot) TV lights.  No one had a Nixon-esque failure and looked bad and I think it was corrected partway through the evening.
    • CNN’s intro was weird – it was as if they were covering someone else’s event with Wolf Blitzer on the floor and other hosts talking over the set up and introduction by Rance Priebus.
    • Jake Tapper had a difficult time controlling the flow and, at one point, GorT turned to Mrs. GorT and said, “So we’re talking about Planned Parenthood, Iran, Putin and illegal immigration all within the same original question”.
    • It was too long.  Period.  ’nuff said.

Here are some recommendations across the board:

  1. Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Ted Cruz and all the candidates who didn’t “make the cut” for the primetime debate should pack it up and stop now.
  2. Ben Carson – I like the idea of a total non-politician running for President* and Ben Carson has some great ideas.  He just, unfortunately, doesn’t have the right personality or delivery for the role, in my opinion.  Maybe some sort of cabinet post….?
  3. Jeb Bush – it struck Mrs. GorT and I last night that, in fact, the last two Republican presidents were Bushes.  I don’t know if we need another Bush.  Even if he is “his own man”.  I think there is baggage there and a break from the same-ol’-same-ol’ would be good.  Please Stephen Colbert totally ruined (in an amusing way) any appearance by Jeb with his take on Jeb’s logo.  Jeb!
  4. That leaves: Trump, Fiorina, Rubio, Walker, and Christie.  The latter two should stay for now, but get ready to angle for a cabinet post or look to keep their day-jobs.  Trump, in my opinion, will fail to produce realistic and substantial plans for the issues we face.  He’ll continue to tout generalizations (“I can build that wall.  I’ll just do it” – great Nike ad, but not a campaign)
  5. I’d like to propose the following debate format to be held in the grand ballroom at Castle Gormogon.  The remaining five candidates above will be invited.  Topics will be sourced by public input and formulated and condensed by your esteemed Gormogons and presented in a brief summary statement that asks for the candidates’ platform and ideas.  Candidates will answer the questions within a two minute window with visible and audible warnings at 45 seconds, 30 seconds and the final 10 seconds.  Once time is expired, their microphone will be silenced.  If they continue to talk past 5 seconds over, a Get Smart-like Cone of Silence will drop over them.  In between each question, the panel of Gormogons will state whether the candidate addressed the topic…think: “Mr. Trump failed to address the question on the Iran nuclear deal.  Next up: Mr. Rubio”.  Candidates are free to use their two minutes as needed, with the caveat that they are subject to mocking and calling out by the Gormogons after each question.  Questions will be answered in turn, so each candidate answers, one after the other, and with each new question the order will be shuffled such that each candidate will have equal positioning in answering.


* Yeah, I know that Trump and Fiorina aren’t politicians as well….but Carson is closer to a Joe Somebody who hasn’t been part or privy to the political machine.