The Gutfeld Monologues

by Greg Gutfeld

  That’s a segue to . . .

  August 9, 2011

  So former vice president Al Gore finally blew a gasket at, of all places, a communications seminar. What pushed the gloomy gasbag over the edge? Well, he feels it’s getting harder for Chicken Littles like himself to talk about climate change now that we’ve all wised up.

  Here’s a rough transcript of his words, and I mean “rough.”

  AL GORE: “This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.” Bull—! “It may be sun spots.” Bull—! “It’s not getting warmer.” Bull—!

  They have polluted this s—t. There is no longer shared reality on an issue like climate, even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea.

  It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word “climate.”

  Wow, that was elegant. Let me tell you: Gore becomes a child who, after defeat, wants to take the ball, that is, the earth, and run home. But what he doesn’t see is that it wasn’t the skeptics who blocked the debate, but the purveyors of panic—like Gore—who exaggerated the threat and demonized anyone brave enough to question it. No wonder he is hotter than those numbers on his silly graphs.

  Anyway, compare him to the deep green resistance and he appears almost sane. In a recent article, these greenies say that to save the earth, civilization must be destroyed violently and replaced by a Stone Age lifestyle. Now, I wouldn’t be against this if these earthworms led by example. But somehow I don’t think they will be embracing Fred Flintstone’s way of living. Sadly for Al Gore, you can’t start your million-dollar houseboat with your feet.

  I firmly believe that the media felt so guilty over Gore losing that they allowed him to become President of the Planet—an office that holds no real power [except on talk shows], but offers him the opportunity to pontificate more than twenty popes put together. Fact is, if Gore had been right in his first movie, An Inconvenient Truth, then there would be no need for his sequel [which came out in 2017], because the planet would already have been destroyed by evil human behavior. That’s the irony lost on Gore: For him to have a sequel, he had to be wrong in the first place!

  I don’t believe you’re crazy to deny climate change, or crazy to run around in a constant apocalyptic panic. Instead, I think both positions are defiant responses to each other. The more people tell you that you might be wrong, the more likely you will dig your heels in and shout even louder. Here’s what I’ve realized over the years: There are a ton of smart people on both sides of the debate. It just so happens the really smart skeptics are also the type of people who rightly sense the strong-arming by their intellectual rivals on the other side. My advice to the warmers has always been: If you stop insulting us, and try to convince us, you’ll find that we’re only really reacting to how the debate is framed.

  I read of an analysis spanning forty-plus years claiming that today’s young Americans are less green than their elders. How could this be? Weren’t they the ones who embraced global warming as scripture and preached that solar and wind power could cure all our ills—including toenail fungus, which is also green? Well, maybe when you get pushed too hard by MTV or self-righteous celebrities or agenda-driven teachers, you realize that you’re being manipulated. All this indoctrination, forcing kids to bow to the god that is environmentalism, backfired, as they realized their little green legs were being pulled.

  July 30, 2013

  Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal just penned an open letter that the fracking boom is cutting demand for Saudi oil, threatening their livelihood, to which I add, hooray! The less we rely on them, the better. Let’s invest all that money here for once.

  If I see another sheik with thirty Mercedes-Benzes, I am going to choke a kitten. It’s amazing. It’s not often in life you encounter something that solves three major problems at once.

  Not true, I love kittens.

  But fracking does that.

  It ends four-bucks-a-gallon gas, check.

  It ends high unemployment, check.

  It ends reliance on countries in unstable parts of the world, where people want to kill us, check.

  So, where is the president on this? He’s busy building a windmill powered by unicorn flatulence.

  And what about green celebrities, goofballs like Yoko Ono and Rosario Dawson who demonized fracking, ignoring the positive impact it’s had on millions of Americans. That’s because people that fracking benefits most, Yoko and Rosie really don’t care about.

  Obama should hail shale like the second coming of kale, but instead shuns the oil deposits like they’re racist, gay-hating Christians. The fact is, Obama didn’t really want independence. And he never really cared for easing suffering at the gas pump. More pain and less consumption was always his goal. Now, it’s all screwed up, thanks to fracking.

  Remember, one of his fave advisers wanted really high gas prices, which would punish all Americans, as a way to lower carbon emissions. America suffers! Hooray!

  So, why isn’t it called bigotry? It strikes me as essentially hating the poor and the uncool. After all, working for an oil company just isn’t as authentic as community organizing. One makes something people use, another just makes noise.

  “Obama should hail shale like the second coming of kale” is my favorite line of the page. Only because I’m a sucker for rhymes. I’m not even sure what it means, but I’m not letting that get in the way of my enjoyment.

  Obama’s antipathy toward fracking and pipelines also served up an easy win for Trump. All Trump had to do was be FOR fracking and pipelines, and he wins. Do the math: Obama was merely trying to please a handful of cool celebs; Trump was appealing to millions of people. And, by reversing Obama’s misguided mission, we further ease our dependence on Middle Eastern madmen. When you consider that, you realize how consequential Trump might become in the Middle East.

  By the way, the idea of banning coal deprives those who burn deadlier substances of it. People who don’t get that are “coal-privileged,”—they’ve had the black stuff all their lives, but now deprive others of it. Trump promising to revitalize that industry helped him beat Hillary, who had no idea what he was talking about. She was too busy laughing hysterically at Trump to notice him walk all over her.

  Almost 2 million die each year inhaling smoke from makeshift fuels like animal dung and wood, all because they lack coal. I guess that doesn’t play too well in the patios of D.C. or Bel Air, where the only climate change that matters is which way the wind blows.

  October 22, 2013

  Remember that stupid song that said children were our future?

  It was right. Children are our future, which is why they now have none.

  According to Stanley Druckenmiller, while today’s seniors will get three hundred grand in lifetime benefits from Social Security, children born today, they’re going to lose four hundred grand. That’s a lot of money.

  I try to calm myself about these facts by telling myself that I’ll already be dead. But then I realize that I won’t be dead. I will have hired a team of scientists to separate my brain from my body and sink it into a vat of delicious nutrients, which will allow me to live, I hope, to the ripe old age of 19,432.

  So, Junior still supports Gramps, but since reproduction has been replaced by recreation, the juniors are disappearing. But at least he’s on Mom and Dad’s health care. But wait, who is paying for that? The kids.

  That’s justice.

  The sheep that voted for change are left with little, except for bragging rights that they voted for the cool guy—and not the Mormon, or the war hero. Sadly, the cool guy screwed you. They always do. It’s true—just watch The Bachelor.

  Finally, 6 million people aged sixteen to twenty-four are neither in school nor working. I’d say they fell through the cracks, but it’s more like an economic black hole, leaving them without skills or experience. So, how do you climb out of the hole?

 
; You frack.

  Thanks to fracking, America will be self-sufficient by 2020, which means good-bye to the maniacs of the Middle East. Al Gore must be sobbing in his bowl of fried kittens.

  No idea what that means, or my recent obsession with kittens. But fracking isn’t just creating freedom. It’s creating jobs. You want to find young people making serious money? Follow the fracking, which is enriching generations of men and women. And true, this work may be beneath the beta male bloggers who majored in gender studies. But those bloggers can tell the frackers that as they wait on them at Applebee’s.

  I am a total hypocrite, by the way. I’m telling kids to go frack; meanwhile the last time I got my hands dirty was April 3, 2005. I can’t get into the actual circumstance, because it involved a bucket of voles and a chinchilla. I probably could not survive an hour fracking. I would break a nail, go on workmen’s comp, and gain enough weight to appear on My Six-Hundred-Pound Life.

  November 14, 2013

  After every major natural disaster you bet some nutcake will blame it on anything but nature.

  Now, a professor of theology blames the tragedy in the Philippines on our use of fossil fuels. The dead aren’t even buried yet.

  I’m referring to Typhoon Haiyan, which was one of the most intense tropical cyclones ever, killing at least sixty-three hundred people.

  Here’s what Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite blames the tragedy on: Quote, “The moral evil of climate change denial that is. Those that continue to deny in the face of mounting evidence that violent climate change is upon us and accelerating.”

  Now, it’s foolish to expect science from crazy. She’s so nutty she qualifies as a Snickers bar. Her assumptions are no different than those of others who gloat over people suffering: “Ha, ha, you denied climate change. How do you feel now looking at all those corpses!”

  I hated it when evangelists blamed AIDS or earthquakes on sin—and I hate it now. It’s done simply for the pleasure of the accuser, to feel superior and right. No misery is too big to fuel your smug satisfaction.

  It’s a key point—every outrage on the left has a mirror image on the right. For every climate nut blaming you for the end of the planet, there’s some crazy right-winger blaming gun shootings on an angry God. I hate all these people, with equal passion.

  The shameful sickness still exists but under a new religion, one of blind faith and flat earth hysteria, and denial of actual facts.

  So, congratulations on cementing your incorrect assumptions about man’s role in causing typhoons. Grieving families are so happy to oblige.

  I maintain that this has been the biggest obstacle to a reasoned argument over climate change. When you indulge those who quickly demonize a side as mass murderers, there isn’t much room for actual logical debate. Worse, it does nothing to alleviate the suffering of those afflicted. Instead, it gives one bitter, shallow scold a dopamine rush derived from the misery of others, and gives people like me more reason to remain skeptical about the side that supports them.

  You see the same routine after every mass shooting. Once one side demonizes another (like, say, implicating law-abiding gun owners, by the association of gun ownership, in the acts of one madman), all it does is cement the divide, rather than thaw the chill. We all need to step back and take a deep breath before we start condemning the other side to some hellish destiny. (I include myself in this advice.)

  December 11, 2013

  The North Pole is melting, and it’s your fault, which is why for Christmas, Greenpeace has barfed out a fundraising video featuring Santa looking like Saddam trapped in a spider hole. In it, he says, “I bring bad tidings. For some time now, melting ice here, in the North Pole, has made our operations and our day-to-day life intolerable and impossible. I have written personally to President Obama, President Putin, all world leaders. Sadly, my letters have been met with indifference. My home in the Arctic is fast disappearing. And unless we can all act urgently, then I have to warn you of the possibility of an empty stocking, forevermore.”

  And here lies the lesson: Once someone’s trying to scare the kids, it’s because they lose on facts.

  This is true in most issues in our time, the drug war, satanic heavy metal music, DDT hysteria, day-care abuse, rising gun crime. Once you focus on actual stats, the story dies. Far better to stoke fear than state the facts.

  We used to call this propaganda. Now, it’s called “raising awareness.” It’s where Al Gore and global warming hysterics live. It’s not about a tiny blip in temperature over a century. It’s that the debate has been stained with lies, panic, and fear.

  The hysterics cried wolf so loudly that the wolf croaked. But the facts are finally winning. Global temperatures are flatlining. That’s not to say we shouldn’t care. A gradual rise in temperatures will save lives.

  This is a point many neglect to mention: People thrive in warmer, rather than colder climates. There’s a reason few people live in frozen climates, and it’s not because of the lousy internet. Just a gradual uptick in temperature, however, leads to a better, healthier climate for growing vegetation. And volleyball, as well as margaritas and coconut-scented tanning spray.

  And the use of coal, which hysterics hate, would save millions of lives in third-world countries where people burn far deadlier stuff.

  So, it’s not this Santa we need to worry about. It’s the Santa in the White House. Fresh from trashing one-sixth of the economy, he’s now eyeing climate change.

  Do you think he’s actually read the science? I doubt it. Like Greenpeace’s Santa, he’s being kept in the dark.

  The apocalyptic response is rampant among the left. It’s their only weapon in their desperate tool kit, when it comes to every issue they engage.

  Tax reform? It kills the poor. Deregulate? It kills the planet. Drill in barren places? It kills reindeer. Repeal Obama’s net neutrality BS? Ends the internet as we know it! It leads me to a favorite rule of thumb: If the left claims that something will lead to widespread devastation, it’s likely the opposite will happen. If liberals were alive at the time of the birth of the universe, they would have argued against the Big Bang.

  But I have to admit that at times, I might be overplaying my hand as a response to the aggressive, coercive elements of the pro–global warming side. I often wonder, if they had not been so shrill, would I think differently about the issue? I have to be honest with myself about this: Maybe my response is driven by my hate for their arrogance. So, in fact, I could admit that I may be wrong, and adjust my views accordingly. But that’s almost impossible to do when the other side declares that such a response STILL ISN’T ENOUGH. [Again, you see this in the gun debate. If you say you want a database, a ban on bump stocks, and an age restriction on certain guns, still, you’ll be told, IT’S NOT ENOUGH. And the media mocks the fear of staunch gun owners that “sensible gun laws” are a Trojan horse meant to usher in total gun confiscation.]

  January 17, 2014

  The UN could be the worst thing ever to contain the letters U and N since untreated rabies.

  That’s a decent line, but then again, it’s 2:30 a.m. and I’m three tablespoons into an expired bottle of Nyquil.

  Case in point, their climate chief says communism is tops at fighting global warming.

  Christiana Figueres claims that America’s political differences prevent passing laws to fight rising temperatures. While in commie China, “They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at. They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”

  Translation: To get what we want, we need a dictator, because then we can murder the dissenters.

  Sounds like the old argument about the positive attributes of a tyrant—at least he’s “making the trains run on time.”

  It’s the same logic behind left-wing fantasies here and abroad. A dictator Obama could take our guns and make us watch PBS. Why not?

  So, never mind that in China, the smog
is thicker than Michael Moore’s thighs, for with the UN, evidence is a drag and so is history. Communism slayed in the twentieth century—over 100 million dead, 65 million in China alone. They’re the McDonald’s of massacres.

  But I get it. Think of how much less carbon is emitted when the emitters are reduced to crushed bone. Using this logic, all killers are environmental heroes. Genghis Khan becomes a tree hugger, and Hitler wrote the first Inconvenient Truth, called Mein Kampf. Perhaps Ted Bundy was killing locally but thinking globally.

  But look, the desire for someone or something to take over and fix things, even if millions die, is not new. It’s the nature of the left. If you wish to remake, you first must undo, which spells doom for me and for you.

  Nice unintentional rhyme—I’m the Doctor Seuss of politics!