The Gutfeld Monologues

by Greg Gutfeld

  I guess to Hollywood, the objective evil is like a relic. Like your granddad’s chompers floating in a glass of water. But ambiguity, that’s cool. It makes you look deep.

  Still, you’d think Homeland would reflect the ugly truth. It is about terror, after all. The problem is entertainment has changed, but evil hasn’t. Since the movie Bonnie and Clyde, Hollywood has romanticized evil. And Reservoir Dogs broke new ground, turning cop mutilation into a dance number. So as we embrace these sexier evils, real evil persists. If we can’t depict that evil, then how can we beat it? I do have a solution for Homeland, however.

  Make ISIS the villain, but one that is funded by a secret group of evil white climate change skeptics. You will knock that script out in an hour.

  This story drove me nuts—that the guy had a problem depicting evil because it was so obviously evil. He needed a gray area, perhaps to help assign blame not just to a pernicious twisted cult, but to us as well. But give it time. I’m certain when the books are written on ISIS, the origins will be firmly rooted in our own imperialism. And these ghouls will be seen as troubled revolutionaries trying to right the wrongs of the West. Because that’s what our entertainment does best: take our deadliest threat and make it our fault. And hire the best-looking people to play those threats in the revisionist blockbuster.

  But understand one thing: Mr. Gansa is not unique in Hollywood, he’s the norm. What’s Arabic for “useful idiots”?

  May 4, 2015

  I love this story. That is all.

  Last night’s “draw Muhammad” contest in Texas did not just draw Muhammad, it drew two Islamists, who drew return fire. Let’s roll this clip:

  JOE HARN, GARLAND POLICE OFFICER: Both of them had assault rifles, came around at the back of the car, and started shooting at the police car. The police officer in that car began returning fire and struck both men, taking them down.

  So, the dudes ended up as a chalk outline—or what Texans call “etchings.” You know you’re down South when even the art shows come holstered. It’s a contrast with Charlie Hebdo, whose editors died helplessly. Terrorists in Texas, however, found a far deadlier lead than what’s inside your basic pencil. They were dispatched—but the idiocy of the press still stands.

  New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi tweets, “Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a Muhammad drawing contest?”

  Well, the answer is in the question, and you expect a reporter whose beat is Islamic extremism would get it. The First Amendment means zilch if it only protects “hello” and “have a nice day.” Protecting free speech is like protecting an empty safe. And also, when you begin your take on free speech with “free speech aside,” you kind of lose the point. But hey, maybe they were asking for it. (Begin video clip.)

  JOHN VAUSE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No one would ever dispute the right for people to have freedom of speech, especially in their country. . . . You know it is a constitutional right. But, are questions being asked in some ways, were they asking for some kind of an attack—that is obviously not that anyone deserved it, but it was some kind of an invitation for an attack, if you like.

  There’s always that “but.” This is where we are. Remember, the attacks on our Libyan outpost were blamed on a film by our own government, including Hillary.

  But if you’re a journalist and don’t get the contest, then it’s you who is the real cartoon.

  I get it—I have better things to do than host a Muhammad drawing contest. But that’s not the point. The point is that such an endeavor could cost you your life in other parts of the world—but in our country, it shouldn’t. It’s a keen lesson that in Texas, an attack against such speech is not that easy. If that guard wasn’t there, armed, this would

  have ended far differently. What kind of message does that transmit? It’s one that the press refuses to hear—that the Second Amendment exists, in part, to protect the First.

  This story explains, succinctly, the solution to preventing every school shooting. But the media will just mock you for making that key point: Hardening soft targets is a moral imperative and also should be a trillion-dollar industry. The entertainment industry, the media, and tech companies all employ high-level rings of security to protect themselves. Why shouldn’t the business of “soft target hardening” be larger than all those industries combined? How is a media corporation more important than a school? Nope. We need to harden soft targets. Couple that with a civil tag database in which names of troubled individuals are placed to prevent gun ownership—and you’d never have another example of carnage like the Broward County horror.

  Now, around this time, the media was pushing a new study saying that American extremists have killed more people than Islamic extremists. There’s just one problem. The study omits 9/11. Yes, they started counting the bodies after that date. That’s like saying, since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, attacks on Pearl Harbor by Japan have decreased. It’s like my saying, you know, since breakfast, I haven’t had another breakfast. So why do they start counting deaths after 9/11? Two reasons: It magically removes three thousand victims from the Islamic terrorist side, but it also ignores the facts that it’s our response to 9/11 that may have reduced further attacks by radical Muslims.

  The point is simple: The media wants to downplay the Islamic threat by playing up others. It’s all born from the same “oppressor vs. oppressed” polarity taught on campuses for the last forty years: Damn the evidence, it has to be America that is truly at fault, for it’s much more powerful, and therefore more evil. You can’t be evil if you’re the David to our Goliath.

  The reflex to blame the West for everything bad is a luxury one can enjoy only in the West. Well protected by our defenses, apologists can indulge our own liberal guilt when we’re attacked by those who view us as infidels.

  August 20, 2015

  I have to say, the Pope ticks me off. And get this: It has NOTHING to do with religion. The guy’s more leftist than Catholic, and in his heart sees America as somehow the Goliath to the subversive radical Davids all over the world.

  In a CNN interview, Donald Trump was asked what he would say to the Pope if he were to meet him next month. Roll it, Sven.

  CHRIS CUOMO, CNN’S NEW DAY COHOST: The Pope believes that capitalism can be a real avenue to greed, it can be really toxic and corrupt, and he’s shaking his finger at you when he said it. What do you say in response to the Pope?

  Here’s my response: If capitalism is the offense, I’m sure Kim Jong-un or the Castro family has room for you on state-sponsored television. I bet you’d look great in grainy black and white!

  TRUMP: I’d say ISIS wants to get you. You know that ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican. You have heard that. You know that’s a dream of theirs to go into Italy. And you look at what’s going on, they better hope that capitalism works because it’s the only thing we have right now. And it’s a great thing when it works properly.

  By the way, as I edit this, what Trump said then is still true today. On the news last night [November 17, 2017], we were warned that ISIS was planning to strike the Vatican. Note to the Pope: It’s ISIS, not climate change, that wants to kill you.

  Well done. Now, I think it’s great for Donald to meet the Pope. Here you have together an outspoken leader of a major religion—and the Pope.

  Ugh. That was obvious.

  But Donald is right, especially since the Pope has bashed capitalism, which has lifted millions out of misery—and he’s also said that Charlie Hebdo victims should have known better. That’s not good.

  As for ISIS, they do want to kill the Pope, but they want to kill everyone, including themselves.

  But Trump should take his own advice, too, and put all focus on those who wish to destroy us.

  Which he ends up doing, and wins an election.

  Just for fun, let’s ponder these headlines from the past.

  “Clinton sees crisis from global warming.”

  “It’s time to fix A
merica’s broken immigration system.”

  Now, both of those headlines were from September 10, 2001, the day before 9/11.

  DAMN, WHAT A POINT.

  There were no headlines on Islamic terror, but lots on immigration and global warming. So while those concerns matter, it’s the stuff we never see coming that gets us. We’re facing a new age of terror.

  Today’s technology, married to today’s hate.

  When ghouls master new methods of mayhem, today’s barbarism will seem like the good old days. So if you’re ever going to be a single-issue voter, that’s your issue. Our next president must put aside platitudes and come to grips with a new threat that’s almost too horrid to contemplate. A store-bought drone with aerosol spores offers ten 9/11s at a fraction of the cost. If that doesn’t get the Pope’s or Donald’s and America’s attention, then nothing will.

  This last point might be the most important—and perhaps repetitive!—point of the book: that it doesn’t matter how flawed a leader might be. If he understands the nature of terror, and how to fight it, then he’s going to be the right choice. I think Trump figured that out, early on. The Pope, sadly, still hasn’t. Which is why he’s really not worth listening to about anything that might contribute to our safety. He hates guns, air-conditioning, and the war on terror. Remove all three, and there is no civilization. At least in my neighborhood.

  Ultimately, nations form to provide citizens with one thing: safety. It’s the first principle of countries. Trump understood that Americans cared more about the safety of their children than about the smog in Beijing. The Dems still can’t get around their own sanctimony long enough to see that.

  November 23, 2015

  After the Paris attacks, President Obama pleads with the media to offer some perspective.

  BARACK OBAMA: The media needs to help in this. I mean, I just want to say, you know, during the course of this week, a very difficult week. It is understandable that this has been a primary focus. But one of the things that have to happen is how we report on this, has to maintain perspective and not, you know, empower in any way these terrorist organizations or elevate them in ways that make it easier for them to recruit or make them stronger. They’re a bunch of killers with good social media.

  When you hear someone offering a “perspective,” what follows is usually a word salad.

  That’s our O. His first reaction is always about overreaction. I think he overreacts about overreaction, and it is underreaction about action that’s the infraction.

  That was good!

  I await a retraction.

  He’s right, though, it’s been a tough week. But it’s strange how he never asks the media for perspective when emotional responses help him out, with climate change, guns, or even his own popularity.

  When the press fell head over heels for him, he never said, “A little perspective, guys. I’m not all that.” No, when it’s his crusade, you better lick that boot. But maybe he’s worried that terrorists steal his spotlight from climate change, which, as you know, causes all terror.

  True, high temperatures create jihadists. Just look at the ISIS franchises popping up all over drought-ridden California!

  Good point.

  Oh, wait.

  But we’re used to our concern being smeared as fear-mongering. O’s disdain for our priorities feels lifted from West Wing scripts, where such mockery passes for thoughtfulness, and it blocks any path to unity.

  The White House mascot should be the ostrich, head in the sand, and all we see is ass.

  Whatever: time to prepare for evil. You aren’t living in fear, but learning to be feared. The Islamists are mindless droids, programmed by ideology and evil. It’s not about them anymore, it’s just an “it.” And there is no Islamophobia when you’re extinguishing a wildfire. So when the president says, this is not who we are, remind him that it goes both ways. We may not be who you are, either. Good for us.

  It’s a hypocrisy few people notice: The left loves to harness emotion, outrage, anger, and fear to drum up support for their concerns. Right now [December 3, 2017], assorted liberals on Twitter are announcing the world is ending. Why? Because of some modest tax cuts that are part of a just-approved Trump tax plan. I’m no fan of the plan [to Trump’s credit, the plan is transparent and I see everything, unlike Obamacare], but the world is far from ending over this. Yet, when we express legitimate horror and anger over Islamic terror, we are told to keep our emotions in check . . . don’t succumb to backlash and bigotry! When something horrible happens to America, we are told to “maintain perspective.” But if something terrible happens [tax cuts!] in which America, or Republicans, are at fault, then damn the torpedoes and bring out the pitchforks.

  However, I might agree with Obama if he had offered a scintilla of evidence that our outrage fuels terrorism. I seem to remember absolutely no outrage over terrorism before 9/11. How did that work out? Oh yeah, we had 9/11.

  December 3, 2015

  Researchers now claim ISIS is using Twitter to recruit Americans. Roughly 250 have taken the bait so far. The catch includes teenage girls, college kids, and a dog named Jasper.

  PERINO: Hey.

  But it’s no longer the world, you see. It’s actually us.

  Through a combination of ideology and technology, terror has grown a new face. Evil needs no air force to cause mass death. All it needs is a drone, a man, and anthrax. It’s not a palindrome, but the plan.

  That’s a reference to the “a man, a plan, panama” palindrome. Which no one got, nor should they. Sometimes I embarrass myself.

  Which is why Rubio has it over Cruz on surveillance, and Donald Trump agrees, saying that when the world would like to destroy us as quickly as possible, I err on the side of security. It’s true.

  But again, it’s not just the world. Today killers are often homegrown. They are the new needles. And to spot a needle, you need tools to sift through the haystack. Sadly, that’s miscast as infringing on privacy.

  It’s a mistake born from a zero-sum fallacy regarding freedom and security. We have freedom because of security, the Second Amendment, our military, rule of law—even the luck of our oceans around us to provide us with security that has its own benefits and limits to our freedoms.

  The oceans make it tough for ISIS to get here. But I also can’t drive to England.

  Super awesome great point!!!

  The new reality is we aren’t dealing with China, North Korea, or the old-school USSR. Mutually assured destruction mattered to them. But to a suicide cult, they’re dying for it. Until we embrace the tools to engage the new enemy, we will die with them.

  This raises the point that I end up repeating over the next few years: that security and freedom are not adversaries, as libertarians would have you think, they are actually siblings who help each other out. Without security, you cannot have freedom. If you want any practical examples, look at hellholes like Somalia, where there is very little security, and accompanying it, almost no freedom. [For a smarter analysis than my own, check out the fantastic, chilling, horrifying book The Future of Violence, by Gabrielle Blum and Ben Wittes.]

  Lack of safety creates its own prison. We just don’t know that, because we’re living in the safest, freest place ever. And there is the second point: You can hate Russia and North Korea all you want, but their endgame is not predicated on martyrdom. They actually want to achieve their goals, here, on planet earth. They actually operate on something that approximates rationality. Even when they’re blowing the propaganda horn, they’re not ACTUALLY going to rush into war [as much as the media freaks out any time North Korea farts in our direction—as if they aren’t aware of what war would mean for a country that has mostly starving people in it to “fight” their war for them]. The modern terrorist, however, with his beyond-earth assumptions, just wants to get to the afterlife as soon as possible—which is why they’re far more dangerous than any previous adversary.

  Say what you will, but Trump looked at a suicide cult and
cut right to the chase. “You guys wanna die? Here, let me help you.” That’s the sort of approach that wins wars. And presidential campaigns.

  December 9, 2015

  So the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told Congressman Michael McCaul that ISIS is now using the refugee stream to come here. Which is odd, since the White House dismissed such claims, but what else is new?

  The White House is now no different than the neighbor who suspected terror, but didn’t report it out of fear of looking racist.

  Here’s a case where the possibility of terrorists slipping into migratory masses—which led to the terror ban that’s often called xenophobic—had been warned about earlier than Trump. Turns out Clapper said it was a problem, too!

  Since the DOJ thinks namecalling is worse than terror, can you blame them? Pair that with our “secretary of stone,” John Kerry, a man whose stiff face makes the Burger King mascot seem relaxed, tweeting pictures of him and James Taylor in Paris just days after a terror attack. I would call him a tool, but that’s wrong because tools are useful. Add a media and celebrity cesspool cheering gun confiscation, and you’ve got a raging case of terror denial. The war on terror becomes an immigration or gun debate, because within those realms we are the ones at fault. It’s the escape hatch from casting moral judgment on our enemies, because if it’s about them and not us, then all that academic brainwash was a waste.

  Note: I was comparing Kerry to that creepy Burger King mascot with a mask for a face. I still don’t understand the commercial value of that grinning monstrosity—I look at it and I don’t think, “Let’s eat hamburgers!” I think, “Let’s get out of here before he eats the skin off my face.”