The Gutfeld Monologues

by Greg Gutfeld

  Says the man so wooden, Orkin sprays him weekly. But he’s right, life doesn’t stop unless you’re in Brussels or Pakistan, and it’s shredded to pieces. But for Kerry, there are bigger fish than ISIS. Climate change, wage gaps, Argentinean dance instructors. Here’s the talking tree on how the world views Trump.

  KERRY: Every leader I meet, they ask about what is happening in America, they cannot believe it. I think it is fair to say that they are shocked. They don’t know where it’s taking the United States of America. It upsets people’s sense of equilibrium about our steadiness, about our reliability. And to some degree, I must say to you, some of the questions, the way they’re posed to me, it’s clear to me that what’s happening is an embarrassment to our country.

  What a sputtering jackass. So let me get this straight: We should act in a manner that makes the world feel better? A world that can barely keep up with us? Please stop, you walking plank of repurposed wood.

  Yes. After so much terror, this is the world’s concern: Trump. I think I can speak for all of us. I don’t care what the world thinks. They don’t have the best track record. Just eight years ago, a new leader received the Nobel Prize for just being him. His vague “hope and change” was lauded for ending the America of old. Tired of being the world’s policeman, Obama buried its badge and gun. Now, in 2016, the world quakes—where’s that gun, that badge? Sure, Trump’s an impulsive hydrant. But can the fear he causes worldwide be worse than Obama’s aloof uselessness? This is the pendulum swing coming after eight years of odd priorities, favoritism toward enemies, dismissal of our own safety—all in the service of world acclaim for Obama. After swimming among a globe of ghouls, maybe it’s time for us to be the scary guy on the block, that heavily tattooed lug with a pit bull and bloodshot eyes. Because if we learned anything this weekend, it’s that all love gets you in this world is killed.

  A more-than-decent prediction. Trump’s unpredictable ambiguity is inspiring new thinking among our adversaries and our allies. And terrorists are dropping like flies. I used to say this a lot on my old show, Redeye: It would be nice if the world saw us as the crazy guy on the block for once. Now we are, and it’s working out nicely.

  Also, as I write [March 2018], North Korea is signaling it wants to talk about denuclearization. I think that’s only happening because Trump could speak Rocket Man’s language. The language is “Our country first, yours second . . . if that.” But Trump’s salesman strategy worked: Create chaos to start a new process in which your position cannot be predicted. Then, negotiate. So far, it’s worked. You always do better when the other side is off-balance.

  June 30, 2016

  Yesterday on CBS This Morning, a correspondent noted how the recent terror attacks were diverting attention from more urgent matters, like our special friend, Mr. Climate Change.

  MARGARET BRENNAN, CBS CORRESPONDENT: President Obama, though, this is the third time in the past year that a major summit is being overshadowed by terrorism. Here in Ottawa, Mexico, Canada, and, with President Obama representing the U.S., were all supposed to sit down and tackle tough climate change issues, including a pledge to switch to renewable, clean energy and tackle immigration issues.

  Poor thing. Instead of discussing how to devote billions of dollars and countless hours of time to slightly adjust global temperatures with little or no evidence that it’s realistic, possible, or even beneficial, we must tackle an evil that’s causing mass death now. Oh, the pain. Having to deal with such an inconvenience, especially when you’ve already printed up that elegant climate agenda on fake organic stock and hired a mime troop to act out the horrors of carbon emissions.

  Terror always rains on their parade. That murderous guest, always uninvited, refuses to leave until you’re dead. What a pain. Because it’s not like we ever discuss climate change or have global summits where self-obsessed celebrities and blowhards show up to outpanic each other! Imagine if we had the opposite: that we had a leader who saw terror as the chief threat, galvanizing the globe to fight these ghouls. Imagine if celebrities understood that they would be the first to die under a caliphate. Imagine if they understood terror change, how the threat expands based on advancing technology. Imagine if they could understand true evil. Of course, they just blame it on SUVs, guns, and Christians.

  Yes, I keep making this point—but I would happily STOP making this point if they stopped avoiding real threats and just agreed with me! That really is the answer for everything: Agree with me!

  Where Are We Now?

  We’re still here. I mean, the planet, that is, unless we were blown to bits in between my writing this sentence and publication of this book. And if that’s the case, this book was a phenomenal waste of my time; I could have been in Aruba drinking Dark & Stormys on a clothing-optional beach with my good friend Lorenzo Lamas. The highlight for me, brought to us by the Trump administration, was the Paris Accord Pullout, or PAP, for short—what can I say, I like acronyms! PAP didn’t make me happy because I think climate change is a hoax (I don’t), it’s because it was a lousy deal predicated on peer pressure, emotional arguments, and bad stats. It was also going to cost us $100 trillion over a century. By my calculations, that’s “a lot.”

  And that’s money that could help a lot of other people.

  This is where I turn to the great Bjorn Lomborg, a Lukewarmer who crunches the numbers as part of his sane Copenhagen consensus group.

  What could you do with a fraction of that Paris accord money? According to Bjorn, whom I asked about all this via email—the UN organization UNCTAD has “estimated that the full extra cost of solving all humanity’s problems in the world (living up to the UN’s sustainable development goals, eradicating poverty, hunger, diseases—while fixing air pollution and climate, and almost any other issue) would cost about $2.5 trillion a year until 2030, which comes to $37.5 trillion.” To deny that money, and instead pour all of it into chasing a goal of preventing an incremental change in Celsius, seems criminal.

  Fact is, there are 2.8 billion people who need to get onto the electricity grid. They suffer from indoor air pollution, which according to Lomborg, is ten times worse than the outdoor pollution in Beijing or Bangkok. According to the World Health Organization, it’s the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes every day (without the pleasure of smoking). Put those people on the grid—which would be powered not by windmills or hairless unicorns but fossil fuels—and that would prevent 2.8 million deaths every year. So the next time a hardcore climate changer says it was evil for Trump to pull out of Paris, simply use their stereotypical argument against them: Their stance kills people.

  CHAPTER SIX

  THE CAMPUS

  For this batch of monologues I’ve included a few more recent ones, in order to cover the recent trend of barring conservative speakers from campus.

  It’s an obvious point, but it bears repeating until my beautiful head explodes: The campus, once designed for free exchange of ideas and expression, is now intensely intolerant of both. I fear that it’s spreading beyond the leafy quads to the real world.

  It boils down to this: If your ideas do not fit perfectly with the hard left’s assumptions, you must be silenced. And they are justified in doing so, for—as the old saying goes—they believe that you aren’t simply wrong, but evil. That means they can use any or all means necessary to stop you. The end result is that the intermediate step between disagreement and chaos, which is dialogue, is removed. And that leaves only violence to “solve” the problem. It’s why the phrase “safe space” is so absurd. If you’re a freethinker hungry for challenging ideas, the campus can be the most unsafe place around.

  Note: One of the most obnoxious campus trends is attacking anyone for cultural appropriation. How dare you wear a sombrero on May fifth? And so on. I get why some isolated incidents can seem silly—but cultural appropriation is actually cultural appreciation, meaning it’s what people do to survive. Everything comes from somewhere. If someone steals something good from one cult
ure, it’s a compliment—and I say this wearing pajamas (culturally appropriated from Indian Muslims). So sue me.

  December 9, 2011

  This is an oldie, but a goodie.

  So, at Iowa State U, the college Republicans started their holiday care package drive to send goodies to troops overseas. We’re talking candies, socks, toothpaste, and puzzle books, basically the stuff Bob shoplifts on a Saturday night.

  A reference to our dear old pal, Bob Beckel—hope you’re doing well, Bob.

  And normal people would embrace this, but academics are not normal people. Take instructor Thomas Walker, who penned a note to the school paper mocking the drive.

  In it he said, quote, “Aren’t GIs paid enough to buy what they need and even what they want? . . . What are the troops doing for us? Nothing. But against us, they are doing a lot, creating anti-American terrorists in the countries they occupy.”

  Oh, yes, there is that “occupy” verb again. Why does the word come from tenured self-absorbed twits who consider a nose ring an achievement? And why is it so many academics are full-on clowns? Is it because carnivals no longer hire?

  I realize at times I fall back on clichés that now make me wince. For example, every time I mention a progressive on campus, I always have to bring up “nose rings” or “patchouli.” It’s hacky. I hate it now. From now on, every time you hear me do it, punch me in the butt.

  Now, I could say that the jerk wrote this letter just to impress naïve coeds, but maybe he needs a real education. How about everyone watching this show now who has a loved one in the military, send him a Christmas card, care of XXXXXXX. And include a photo of that loved one inside. Be sure to add a note explaining what they are doing for us.

  I’m blocking out the address here.

  It’s not so much a care package, but a “why you should care” package. It may not matter to him, but it’s really for you.

  This is an example of a jackass picking a terrible battle to fight. You can have a stupid opinion, like “Why send these jerks care packages,” but if you’re smart, you just mutter the notion to yourself and move on. This dope actually felt compelled to make his idiotic thought immortal in a letter. Next time, Tommy, count to one hundred before you put finger to keyboard, jerkwad. (By the way, I give the same advice to myself, which I still often ignore.)

  April 2, 2012

  A new study by the California Association of Scholars reports that the UC system is rife with left-wing bias. The “system head” rejects these findings, of course. After all, they come from conservative scholars.

  So, that’s got to be biased!

  Of course, the college head will think it’s biased in the same way a suspect might accuse a witness of bias, because the witness caught him in the act.

  But how do you know the bias is real? Talk to your average professor. If he doesn’t utter the word “patriarchy” in five minutes, he’s been dead for six minutes.

  Ask a student about patriotism—feel free to yank out his nose ring when he mentions Halliburton.

  There I go again. Nose ring. I am punching myself in the butt!

  Look how conservative speakers are handled on campus. Ahmadinejad gets way better treatment.

  Look at the jobless grads. They majored in crud that guarantees teaching the same crud to another clueless kid.

  As Thomas Sowell points out, students can exit top colleges learning nothing about science, math, or economics—all the stuff that protects you from demagoguery.

  So you have grads with a dummy education that makes them vulnerable to bad ideas. See Occupy Wall Street.

  But this isn’t news. We know college is commie central. So, conservatives have to stop whining and start crashing the party. It’s time to stop pointing fingers and step on a few toes.

  Let’s see what happens when a professor finally meets someone who thinks America is a positive force in the world. He’ll probably choke on his tongue stud.

  Well, I apparently moved off nose rings to a “tongue stud.” I have now punched myself twice in the butt, and once in the throat for good measure. I apologize for these stale cliches.

  November 21, 2012

  So, according to a new poll, 63 percent of college grads think the American dream is dead. I’m surprised they knew what it was. For this dream, once defined by equality of opportunity, has been replaced by the morally superior equality of outcome.

  So why is that? Well, for the dream to work, you had to get American exceptionalism. After all, there is no Belgian, Mexican, or Hawaiian dream.

  I make that Hawaiian joke to invite viewers to write in to tell me that Hawaii is indeed part of the Union. And some people do write in to correct me! (Note: I love Hawaii. Ever since the three-part Brady Bunch episode, I’ve wanted to live there in a cave with Vincent Price.)

  But even our president thought that was academic. Exceptionalism, it’s so Leave It to Beaver.

  See, the dream requires thinking that our system is better. And that’s mean. The American dream of selfish individualism makes the world mad.

  So now, “exceptionalism as exploitive” is coming back. It’s never a new idea. It’s sprouting from the same leafy campuses that gave us an administration that sees government as the dream’s replacement.

  As young folks are saddled with debt and unemployment, Obama wishes to expand the government’s reach, raising taxes on those who spent decades laboring under that old dream.

  It is weird that after four years of “hope and change,” a poll suggests there is no hope for the “dream.” Was that the intended effect?

  So, how can anyone believe in a dream when our leaders don’t? They look at stagnant Europe and say that’s better. America may be entering a nationally recurring nightmare. And I don’t mean the one where Dana and Jasper show up as house guests.

  If you watch The Five, then you’ve seen Dana’s dog, Jasper. But it’s a lot bigger in person than it is on the flat screen. And it has no sense of “space,” meaning if you’re sitting in a single chair, it will lumber over like a drunk construction worker and climb up on the same perch, assuming both of you will fit. Invariably, you don’t, and you end up giving up the seat to the dog, who may have had that goal in his head from the very beginning.

  March 5, 2013

  Stanley Kurtz in National Review is reporting on the left-wing campaign to have college endowments divest their holdings in fossil fuel companies. The movement so far has affected 250 campuses, featuring the crown jewels of hipster protest, sit-ins, building seizures, and hunger strikes. Which leaves me to one point about student hunger strikes: Let them starve—for a while. Seriously, they could stand to lose a few pounds.

  Easy, lame joke. But the fact is, young people are getting fatter and paler. The good news—it’s temporary. Once they leave college and realize that playing video games and watching the Housewives of Whatever does not pay them a living wage, suddenly they’re making themselves presentable. I went in the opposite direction. I was in amazing shape in college. Now I’m a ball of carbs with a belly button.

  But divestment is part of a larger goal, found in teachers’ lounges: killing America. It’s a movement to upend progress, which, to them, is code for American domination.

  Look at its leader, Bill McKibben, who is blocking the Keystone pipeline. It’s a coercive ideology, forcing you to return to a communal lifestyle—no cars, no stores, and no clean underwear. For climate changers, it was all kind of a ruse, forcing you to bend to their primitive utopia. So far, Obama doesn’t seem to mind.

  Anyway, remember how the goal of the radical Islamists is to force existence back to a time when Muhammad walked the earth? The only difference between them and the divesters is the radical Islamists cut to the chase.

  But I endorse this divestment movement, and would like to see Harvard, where the students favor divestment overwhelmingly, give up oil entirely. Let the kids and their idiot professors freeze their Marxist asses off next winter. May they keep warm perhaps by burning
copies of my book, The Joy of Hate.

  This point could have been made clearer: The radical Islamic dream to return to a seventh-century belief system is somewhat similar to the dream of those greenies who wish us to return to the life of Luddite simplicity. To be clear, this point isn’t about terrorism, but about a distaste for progress that disrupts your own ideology. Yet the other hilarious thing they have in common: They both use technology to preach their return to primitiveness. Every green celebrity who flies a private jet to expound on climate change deserves a nuclear wedgie.

  May 6, 2013

  Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers was at Kent State giving a keynote talk when he was asked what made him different from the Boston bombers. It is a fair question. Ayers had tried to kill innocent Americans with bombs forty years ago, just like the jihadists of today.

  But he claims that the Muslim supremacists were nihilistic, while back then he believed in something. But also, Ayers points out, all of his terrorist pals did back then was property damage.

  About that property damage . . .

  During the Kent State talk Ayers left out how he lost three of his pals. Bombs they were making actually blew their heads off. Yes, property damage. The bombs were intended for a dance at the Fort Dix Army Base in New Jersey. So, the right people died that day. Thank God.

  A harsh line, but factually true, agree? Just nod for yes—I’ve embedded microscopic cameras in these pages capturing your every move.