Andrew Breitbart: Mall Cop

Cow Towing to Other Countries

He’s No Sam Waterston

with 10 comments

Oh hey, look who’s joined Big Hollywood‘s stable of right-leaning, uh, celebrities!  It’s ADA Ben Stone!  I’m starting to wonder what it is about Law & Order that attracts actors with such a bizarre version of conservative politics.

As long, disjointed and just-plum-loco as ADA Ben Stone’s inaugural post is, there’s something about it that I find, well, cute.  Maybe it’s the general first-day-of-school icebreaker feel (“Hi everybody!  I’m Mikey!  I like Ronald Reagan and Glenn Beck but I HATE communists.  They’re so stupid!  I bet my little sister is a communist!”).

Or maybe it’s the novelty of seeing a far-right crazy person who seems to think it’s still 1951.  It’s almost like a creative writing assignment:  “What would a paranoid conservative blog posting look like if they’d had the internet during the early days of the Cold War?”  So much of this blog is devoted to smarmy fratboy wankers who think Obama’s the Beast from Revelations, here to institute compulsory sodomy and abort every non-Muslim fetus, that there’s something charming about a little bald dude still wringing his hands over all those Hollywood Jews on the Soviet payroll.

What does Big Hollywood mean?

Is it a tribute or in-house sarcasm?

So far I only know Big Hollywood’s politics as counter-revolutionary conservative – and if I’m wrong, Andrew and John, please correct me … and that’s why I’m here … as a pro-life libertarian … a category I’ve been in long before I even heard of the name Glenn Beck.

I’m here to try stemming the Revolutionary Tide that has been rising in larger and larger waves from the shores of 18th Century France when the guillotine gave its deadly review to the court of Louis XVI; and subsequently the communes of Paris eventually threaded their legendary grand guignolthrough the minds of Karl Marx, Vladimir Ilytch Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung.

So here I am … in Big Hollywood … clutching my memories of the American Declaration of Independence and its words: “All men are created equal.”

It always seems bizarre when conservatives try to style themselves as part of a Burkean tradition.  It’s one thing to point out the excesses of the French Revolution, but to go all out and side with Louis XVI?  And you gotta love Stone expressing his hatred for the “Revolutionary Tide” (a force so sinister it deserves to be both capitalized and italicized), by quoting a document that initiated a revolution.

No, my dear Progressives, Americans were not intended to be gestated as possible candidates for abortion … despite what Chris Matthews of MSNBC infers.

Recently, in the best French Revolutionary tradition, that enlightened despot rode roughshod over a rather royal member of the Catholic Church who was defending Rome’s decision to excommunicate a Kennedy for supporting abortion.

Hmmm … Mr. Matthews kept hammering the poor Roman Prince over what the penalties would be for abortion … should Roe v Wade be overturned … with the inferential reminders of Catholic Inquisitional sadism … and the “Robe” took the bait and folded.

I conclude that the penalties for abortion should be “probational,” periods of close observation on all three corners involved: the mother, the father and the doctor/abortionist. If abortions become chronicwith these citizens under close observation … perhaps jail time would be the only effective deterrent.

OK, so a quick rundown of the factual errors in this section:

1) Kennedy has not been excommunicated or even threatened with excommunication.  He was asked not to take Communion.  It’s unclear if he would have actually been denied Communion had he chosen to ignore this request.

2) The order didn’t come from the Vatican, it came from a US bishop.

3) Chris Matthews is not, in fact, more powerful than the Catholic Church.

4)  Why the fuck is “reminders” italicized?

To recap the ideological stance here:  abortion is murder, guys.  It is so much like murder that the sentence for it should be probation.  Unless it’s chronic.  I am so down with this new conservative “get one murder free” policy.  Now that’s some libertarianism I can get behind!  Tell me who you will use your free murder on in the comments!  As for me, well, Asher Roth better sleep with one eye fucking open.

But hold up, DA Ben Stone is about to go from LULZ to WTF:

In the 1940’s, the possible jail penalties certainly didn’t keep my parents, a surgeon and his alcoholic wife, from having two illegal abortions, cardinal illegalities.

I was informed of those facts at the rather dumbfounded age of 10.

“My parents had two of my siblings murdered?!”

No one was arrested … because no one knew … except for my equally stunned sister and myself.

Divorces are a war zone, of course … but divorce after two abortions … for the surviving children … is a Holocaust zone.

With an actual lifetime of survivor’s guilt … ranking second only to the Irish predisposition for alcoholism … I’m surprised I’ve done as well as I have … thanks to Alcoholics Anonymous … and the words, “Let go, let God!”

Now here I am back in not just Hollywood but Big Hollywood!

What a journey!

Another quick fact-check for Mr. Stone:  most (but not all) bloggers were not aborted as fetuses.  Having a rough childhood does not make you a Holocaust survivor.  Not being aborted as a fetus does not make you a Holocaust survivor.

And, I mean, clearly Stone’s family situation was messed-up.  Does he think that jail time for his parents would’ve helped matters?  Or, alternatively, the government forcing his mother to bring two more children into that situation?  There’s not any easy answers in a case like that.  Which is why, you know, it should be the woman’s choice and not the government’s.  I shouldn’t have to be explaining this to a self-identified “libertarian.”

Ugh.  At least Stone gets back on track though:

What are my plans with the coming articles?

To track my personal experience with the former Soviet Russia’s undeniable strategy, its unrelenting efforts to Communize all of theater and film in the United States.

Again with the freaking italics.  And… “personal experiences”?  Did he infiltrate the KGB or some shit?  Does he even realize that Soviet Russia doesn’t exist anymore?  I can’t wait for these posts.

Finally, we are actually choking in the debt-ridden quagmires placed under us so that Lenin and Stalin … and Castro and Chavez… and Mao and Pol Pot … and Osama bin Laden can all see their evil vindicated by history and Hollywood … highlighted to eternity by the fall of the United States to world Communism … our nation’s suicidal, deaf and dumbly naïve surrender to the Red/Islamic game plan now being heralded in Hollywood, Chicago, New York and Washington D. C. … yet smugly bandied about in White House dinner parties as the “Progressive World Government.”

Ah yes, bin Laden, that pinko commie scum.  I thought people like Stone had more or less died out, even on the right.  Everything he dislikes is part of a worldwide communist plot.  I can’t wait for the nuanced version!


10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Your post made for entertaining reading but your view of abortion is off the mark, IMHO. “It should be the woman’s choice, not the government’s”. What say we let every decision concerning one’s children be left up to the parents, then? Afterall, they are just pieces of property, as you see it. Or, somehow, there is a magical time when a person achieves status as a human being. When that time is is purely arbitrary in all scenarios except for the one in which conception is considered that magic moment. As far as being confused why a libertarian would be pro-life, do you consider true libertarianism to be against all government intervention? So being against murder runs counter to the libertarian credo? Your understanding of Libertarianism seems a little warped, if you don’t mind my saying.


    December 8, 2009 at 3:21 am

  2. The belief that Libertarianism automatically endorsed a pro-choice viewpoint, as many seem to think, is just a trifle simplistic. Are the civil liberties of the babies in the womb being protected? To conveniently define that baby as not being human and therefore not deserving of any protections is nothing more than thinking that saying it makes it so. The ACLU acts as though life within the womb DOES NOT EXIST. They completely ignore it! It probably helps them sleep at night but it doesn’t change the reality of the situation.


    December 8, 2009 at 3:30 am

  3. Patricia, hon, I suggest you get a 9th grade biology textbook and learn the definitions of blastocyst, embryo, fetus, and baby.


    December 8, 2009 at 3:33 am

  4. Endorses, not endorsed. I usually make a silly mistake like that. If you had refrained from the typical liberal slant on abortion, I would have thought more highly of you as a thinker. Sadly, you seem to be just another ideologue-with no independence of thought or originality. The style was good, the substance was predictable. You also seem to be a little too pleased with yourself.


    December 8, 2009 at 3:34 am

  5. Ok, hon. That’s the typical response of someone who doesn’t want to bother doing any thinking herself. Very lazy. Those definitions are arbitrary, too, given that life is a continuum and not a series of discrete stages. Believing that helps to make it easier for YOU to accept what is a barbaric act.


    December 8, 2009 at 3:38 am

  6. It’s *so* barbaric that the punishment should be probation!


    December 8, 2009 at 5:21 am

  7. No, the mother should be tried as someone who had put a hit out on her child and the abortionist should be tried as the hit man (or woman). In other words, they should be tried for the crime of murder. Given that the unborn are viewed with so little sympathy by so many that view would be unpopular, probably even by most pro-lifers. But that is the only logical position to take if you believe that human life does indeed begin at conception.

    I know that won’t happen anytime soon. But it may someday.

    BTW, I actually find most of your blog entries to be worth reading-with the caveats that I mentioned in my third post. You are good at critiquing others but the positions you wind up taking are pretty predictable.


    December 8, 2009 at 5:35 am

  8. You’re right, that is the only logical position you can take. It’s not the position Mr. Moriarty takes in the piece, which is why I was making fun of him.

    You are certainly free to pine for a day on which Mr. Moriarty’s mother might be put to death (or at least be sentenced to life imprisonment). I’m content just laughing at him though.

    I also apologize if my personal positions/beliefs are hampering your ability to laff at Big Hollywood contributors. Believe me, it is never my intention to impede that noble pursuit.


    December 8, 2009 at 6:38 am

  9. I should also not be quite such a dismissive asshole and add that, while I am certainly no arbiter of who gets to self-identify as “libertarian” and who doesn’t, libertarianism, as a movement, has historically been fairly solidly pro-choice.


    December 8, 2009 at 6:55 am

  10. His second article is up. Wow. I mean, WOW.

    Dan Coyle

    December 9, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: