Glenn's review of Vanity Fair


GLENN: So I thought, you know, since the comedy show is tonight in movie theatres all across the country, I thought we could do a review of the reviewers. For instance, the review of the Vanity Fair review, see if I could just do the same thing that they do to me and to you, by giving them the backhanded compliments. And I'm going to be fair. I want you to know I'm going to be very, very fair, Vanity. So here's my review of the review. Who's the most handsome man on the planet? Read one of the excising news morsels on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, the kind that are supposed to lure me in reading further inside. The new girls of summer was another irresistible tease. Whatever you think of Vanity Fair, a cesspool of pointless gossip, a tree murdering outlet for the lame opinions of the artsy tree hugging liberals, a good, clean, fun, somewhat informative page turner, God help us but most don't think of Vanity Fair as a magazine that would give a positive or even fair review to common sense in any form, nor would they would even understand it with all those handsome men and summer girls distracting them. I've been fascinated with Vanity Fair ever since they scooped the world and got the first pictures of TomKat's baby. Before that I thought vanity was just another gossip rag with a babe on the cover, a poor man's Cosmo, if you will, without the intellectual might of Cosmo. Despite my concerns that Vanity's review of my show would be just another liberal hit piece, yet another boring attempt at liberal blogger stardom, I went into the review of this review with an open mind. I would only judge the quality of the reviewer's review, nothing else.

First I had to get a copy of Vanity Fair. I made sure to go to the most redneck store in Oklahoma just to see what kind of universal appeal Vanity Fair has because, remember, I'm being open minded. The magazine rack was full of Vanity Fair magazines. It looked as if they hadn't even sold one at this bait and tackle shop. When I asked the shop keeper, he confirmed it. He said, "Why would anyone read that garbage. Who cares what Lindsay Lohan had for breakfast." Well, after I open mindedly bought the magazine, I realized the cover may as well have read "26 Ways to Please Your Man and One Way to Waste Your Money." One of the most important qualities of a legitimate magazine is that they have a front, back and cover page and some pages in the middle. Well, Vanity Fair has all of those things. And there's some endearing, there's something endearing in the stories, the world's most available heir and heiresses, Johnny Depp's past appearances in Vanity Fair and inside the Vanity Fair's Oscar party all completely unbelievably irrelevant stories that mean absolutely nothing to anything, yet all in one magazine, endearing. The review started with a Lars von Trier reference, I love Lars, especially this time of the year, I mean, who doesn't. But in the end it was apparent that the reviewer was Lars Von Trying Too Hard, you know, exempting to impress his friends with random references of random Dutch filmmakers many would wonder if he was being pretentious enough to testify a Wilder's nationwide banning. And yet that wasn't the end of the self important wordiness as this reviewer used his F7 Shift Microsoft Word thesaurus to spell out the word stentorian like he had ever been comfortably using that in a sentence before. I mean, who's been listening to Fiona Apple? You have, yes. But regardless of how fitfully cryptically true it was, a cunning way to condescend, it was not. It was borderline criminal how far he had gone beyond the Rubicon of a fodderal. Well, I have no idea what I just said but neither did the reviewer.

Then the review recited liberal blog criticisms for six excruciatingly long paragraphs before finally getting to the actual review of the show. Now, I'm not a professional reviewer, only a professional reviewer of reviewers, but this type of writing could be the reason why no one is buying Vanity Fair magazine. Oh, they were apparently displeased, when they went to the show, they were displeased that I poked fun at Henry Waxman's nose. This is because an intelligent liberal never, ever stooped to making fun of someone's appearance. For example, Al Franklin who in this same review that I reviewed was praised as a satirist with a will for real activism. Al Franken, he would never write a book entitled Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, would he? I suppose the difference is conservatives who make fun of others' appearances aren't generally rewarded with Senate seats. Franken, however, like the person the reviewer was reviewing, I had actually heard of Al Franken before, unlike the reviewer that the reviewer of reviewers was reviewing. However, this reviewer, in this review, was also referred to the subject of the review as having an overstuffed neck. So in other words, Mr. Beck had an overstuffed neck. Completely true, yes. But it almost seems like some sort of a nasty shot at someone's appearance, doesn't it?

Well, it wasn't until I reached the bottom of the page and clicked down, you know, on that arrow there that I realized there was more of this review. That's actually when I yelled out, "You've got to be kidding me!" Neither Johnny Depp, nor any of the new girls of summer answered.

Wait a minute, the guy yelling out, that wasn't from Vanity Fair. That was the New York Times. That was another review that I reviewed, but we'll review those later.

Confirming Kavanaugh: Welcome to the #MeToo era

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Welcome to the #MeToo era of Supreme Court justice confirmation.

Last Thursday, Senator Dianne Feinstein disclosed the existence of a secret letter, written by an anonymous woman alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school in the 1980s.

Yesterday, there was a major twist in this story that everyone who follows Leftist strategy should've seen coming: the anonymous woman suddenly revealed herself to be Christine Ford, a 51-year-old research psychologist at Palo Alto University in Northern California. She's a registered Democrat and has donated to political organizations. But she pinky-swears that it has nothing to do with her coming forward with this story just one week before the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on Kavanaugh.

RELATED: THIS is the man plotting to stand in Brett Kavanaugh's way of the Supreme Court

Christine Ford spilled the exclusive beans to The Washington Post because they believe that "Democracy dies in darkness." And of course, if there's anything that Kavanaugh hopes to accomplish on the Supreme Court, it's murdering democracy.

Ford told The Post that during a high school party, a drunk Brett Kavanaugh pinned her on a bed, groped her, and covered her mouth to keep her from screaming.

She said:

I thought he might inadvertently kill me. He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.

There is no indication that she reported such a harrowing attack to the police.

Kavanaugh unequivocally denies the accusations. The White House released a letter signed by 65 women who say they knew Kavanaugh in high school and vouch for his character. But it won't matter. The Democrats will get their circus this week and Kamala Harris and Cory "Spartacus" Booker will get their chance to remind everyone to vote for them for president in 2020 because only Democrats like women.

It's virtually impossible to prove or disprove her claim. But the political timing of the story drains its credibility.

Christine Ford might be telling the absolute truth about this incident with Kavanaugh. She might also be making up the whole thing for politics sake. Problem is, it's virtually impossible to prove or disprove her claim. But the political timing of the story drains its credibility. Kavanaugh was confirmed to the federal bench by the Senate in 2006. Where was Ford's dramatic story then?

Last year this worked to de-rail Roy Moore's senate campaign, so why not try the same tactic with Kavanaugh? Especially since it perfectly serves the Left's narrative that Kavanaugh plans to destroy women's rights.

Truth doesn't stand a chance when it's up against this kind of hysteria.

Unprecedented: You'll never believe who just snubbed Obama

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

Somewhere, in some dark newsroom, an age-old editor is levitating, eyes glowing like radioactive soil. Because an unprecedented event has taken place, right in front of our eyes, a puzzling miracle, something never before seen in journalism: The Associated Press criticized Barack Obama.

Yes, friends, you read that right. The AP guard has turned against their wizard leader. The army has mutinied against their commander... you get the point. The AP has always loved Obama, like they have a crush on him. It's more of an obsession, really.

RELATED: The AP's love affair with Antifa is partisanship cloaked as news

They've always stored up their animus and directed it at one person: President Trump—well, Trump and everyone around him—going so far as to mock First Lady Melania's hat on one occasion. They blatantly insulted her fashion and appearance, all the while championing social justice, immigration and women's rights, but that's another conversation for another day.

Even the article's title is salty: "AP FACT CHECK: Obama doesn't always tell the straight story." We'd all just gotten used to headlines like "AP FACT CHECK: Trump ruins America" or "AP FACT CHECK: Reality star embarrasses country again" or "AP FACT CHECK: Orange man bad."

Here's the opening line of the article:

Former President Barack Obama's recent denunciation of President Donald Trump's treatment of the press overlooks the aggressive steps the Justice Department took to keep information from the public during his administration. Obama also made a problematic claim that Republican "sabotage" has cost 3 million people their health insurance.

Then they break down all the lies Obama has committed. It's truly unbelievable.

OBAMA: "It shouldn't be Democratic or Republican to say that we don't threaten the freedom of the press because they say things or publish stories we don't like. I complained plenty about Fox News, but you never heard me threaten to shut them down or call them enemies of the people." — rally Friday at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

THE FACTS: Trump may use extraordinary rhetoric to undermine trust in the press, but Obama arguably went farther — using extraordinary actions to block the flow of information to the public.

Did they just say that Obama went farther than Trump? In undermining the press?

They actually said Obama's rhetoric to the press was worse than Trump's.

Overall, this is a great thing—a sign that the AP might even be regaining its ability to do actual journalism. But, man, it is still a shock. They actually said Obama's rhetoric to the press was worse than Trump's. Good heavens, this must be the last day on earth!

Although, I can say that it's not, because, if it were, the New York Times would be reporting all about it: "Trump causes apocalypse, is racist," endorsed by the whole editorial board, all foaming at the mouths like they're possessed by demons—or worse, deranged Antifa protestors who slept through their noon session of yoga.

By now, thanks to the incessant fear-mongering by Democrats, you're probably aware that American women will lose all their rights if Brett Kavanaugh becomes a Supreme Court justice. Technically, there's not any truth to that idea whatsoever of course, but it hasn't stopped the hysterics.

Now, this anti-Kavanaugh hysteria has inspired Democrats in Maine to get creative. Because one of their senators, sort-of-Republican Susan Collins, is considered a potential deciding vote in Kavanaugh's confirmation, they are threatening to donate $1 million to her 2020 Democratic opponent, unless Collins votes "no" on Kavanaugh.

RELATED: PROGRESSIVE PANIC: No, Kavanaugh is not 'a death sentence for thousands of women in the U.S.'

Using a crowd-funding site called Crowdpac, two groups called "Maine People's Alliance" and "Mainers for Accountable Leadership" posted a listing that says:

The people of Maine are asking you to be a hero, Senator Collins… If you fail to stand up for the people of Maine and for Americans across the country, every dollar donated to this campaign will go to your eventual Democratic opponent in 2020. We will get you out of office.

The project has already received pledges from 37,000 people, totaling over a million dollars. In a weird way, they're basically attempting to buy her vote. In some circles, this is known as bribery. Senator Collins released a statement calling it extortion, and then one of the groups behind this effort called her response, "politics at its worst."

The Maine groups' twist is that if Collins votes "no" on Kavanaugh, they supposedly won't collect the pledges from their 37,000 donors. But they're still using the pledged money to try to induce Collins to vote the way they want, they're just not offering the money directly to Collins like your typical, old-fashioned bribe.

Like many poorly conceived schemes in our social media age, Maine Democrats didn't really think this one through.

Like many poorly conceived schemes in our social media age, Maine Democrats didn't really think this one through. Because bribery is a federal crime. And just because this is a kind of hipster, inverse bribe, several legal experts think it's still technically a bribe.

Could these groups be shooting themselves in the foot with this strategy? What if, by trying to force Collins to vote no on Kavanaugh, they inadvertently cause her to vote yes, simply to avoid looking like she was influenced by their scare tactic?

And just when you thought politics couldn't get any weirder.

It's bad enough that bigoted scientists have assumed the gender of Hurricane Florence, now President Trump is stepping in to make the hurricane more powerful.

Remember a time when sentences like that one would be laughed at? Not anymore. Yes, a massive storm is about to make landfall on the East coast and The Washington Post is blaming President Trump for the hurricane. For a hurricane.

RELATED: Hurricane Florence is bearing down on the East Coast and YOU have to be the first responders

And this is not an op-ed. This is straight from the editorial board of the Washington Post.

"When it comes to extreme weather," they write, "Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans' role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks. It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change. But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth's systems to produce disasters."

Meanwhile, Obama is hailing angelic rainbows down from Heaven, LGBTQ only of course, and sheltering woke transgender infants from tornados in Nebraska. Linda Sarsour and Colin Kaepernick only need to wave their hands and earthquakes will stop.

The Washington Post editorial again:

With depressingly ironic timing, the Trump administration announced Tuesday a plan to roll back federal rules on methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is the main component in natural gas. Drillers and transporters of the fuel were supposed to be more careful about letting it waft into the atmosphere, which is nothing more than rank resource waste that also harms the environment. The Trump administration has now attacked all three pillars of President Barack Obama's climate-change plan.

The piece concludes:

The president has cemented the GOP's legacy as one of reaction and reality denial. Sadly, few in his party appear to care.

In other news, the Russians have meddled with a tsunami in Southeast Asia, which will have catastrophic effects on the mid-term elections here in America.