The Gutfeld Monologues

by Greg Gutfeld

  • Is that method actually safer or cheaper than your alternative?

  • Does more expensive transport hurt the poor consumer more than the wealthy?

  • Is there the remotest possibility that renewables can power the nation even enough to install renewables?

  • In fact, do you know one basic fact about the subject that you’re opining about?

  April 20, 2012

  So, George Clooney will host a $6 million fundraising dinner for Barack Obama at his L.A. home. And people can donate three bucks to win a spot at the table. I wonder if they’re serving free-range terrier.

  Ah yes, a dog joke. In case you forgot, around this time we learned about Obama’s sampling of dog as part of his diet when growing up wherever. Yeah, he ate a dog. The media found it exotic and adventurous. Of course when Mitt Romney DIDN’T eat a dog, but only had a live pet in a box on the roof of his car, he was SATAN. Satan with amazing hair, by the way. Can we agree that Mitt Romney was the best-looking presidential candidate we ever had? (Maybe I should quit writing him those letters.) Obama could put Romney himself on the roof of his car and drive cross-country and not get half the shit Mitt had thrown at him.

  Yes, it sounds like a presidential kissing booth. But what’s weird, only three dollars? That’s what Dana pays her intern for a day’s work. Sad story—Dana’s intern came to America to chase a dream, and now, all he does is wax spelling bee trophies from 1989. I guess his quiet sobs are music to someone’s ears.

  But three bucks? I guess four would be too much to hear Obama say, “Wow, these organically grown fair trade green beans are delish. Hey, Biden, would you eat with your mouth closed, please?”

  Here’s the point of this “win a date with a 1 percent” event: A bunch of Hollywood zillionaires invite unwashed slobs to Clooney’s place . . . and the Republicans are elitist? I guarantee you they’ll be eating with silver spoons.

  This reminds me of the scene in The Elephant Man when the socialists had poor John Merrick to dinner. It’s as if the Democrats can’t believe such a thing as a blue-collar Republican exists. After the Trump win, they better believe it now.

  And celebs like Clooney are so special they can’t even live in America. It’s so small a playing field and doesn’t make them special enough to their countrymen. Patriotism is so red state.

  But this fits perfectly with Barack’s philosophy of American unexceptionalism. So, now, some lucky winner can sit at the table with these wealthy internationalists and hear lines like “Wow, I would say this is exceptional chicken. But if it’s American grown, I say it’s no better than anyone else’s chicken.”

  If that doesn’t make you a Republican, you’re hopeless.

  I especially like that dig at Dana over spelling bee trophies. I once asked her if she had any regrets in life and—and I’m not kidding—she said, “I wish I had taken harder courses in college.” What kind of regret is that? It’s a Dana Perino Regret. A Dana Perino Regret is not a regret over a shameful act, but a desire to have done something better that was already done great. My typical regret involves some sorry combination of tequila and a lonely long-haul trucker. But a typical Dana Perino Regret: “I wish I had four different cheese dips for the nachos, not just three. Do you think anyone will notice?”

  August 6, 2012

  Legendary actor Clint Eastwood—you remember him from Die Hard—endorsed Mitt Romney for president.

  Yes, I know Clint wasn’t in Die Hard—I just do that to rile up viewers. When they write in to correct me, then I know they’re listening. After all, everyone knows the star of Die Hard was Bob Saget.

  Now, a friend of mine laughs when I get excited over stuff like this. After all, I often wish that lefty celebrities would stay out of politics. So he thinks my excitement over Clint makes me a hypocrite. Not really. See, righty celebrities are different. If you meet a politically active celebrity, nine times out of ten they are to the left of Hugo Chávez. And if you meet an apolitical celebrity, nine times out of ten they will just parrot the liberal line. That’s because when asked about a cause, they just can’t shrug, they must play the role or end up losing roles later.

  So that leaves a tiny group of gutsy types who are not afraid of losing work by expressing views that are branded evil in Hollywood. So my excitement over righty stars is really a recognition of guts. And yes, I realize Clint’s political outspokenness came much later in his career. Knowing that actors lose work over things they say, perhaps Clint realizes he has got less to lose at this point.

  This is why Kanye’s pro-Trump tweets are vital—he did that at age forty, at the height of his powers, when he has most to lose. And it looks like he could lose a lot for his bravery. But he gained his freedom.

  But lefty stars risk nothing, ever—in fact they gain from their political views, jobwise. So the next time some young star lies about how fracking causes breast cancer, realize it’s only for his career. Because the lefty ladder has now replaced the casting couch, which means they can now screw the whole country at once.

  I should note that not every Hollywood star is a bleeding-heart leftist—there’s actually a strong cohort of righties in there, but they’re smart enough to keep a low profile. Being a conservative in Hollywood is like being a belt in Michael Moore’s house—rare, and despised, for it’s a reminder of long-lost standards. I get into that next!

  September 28, 2012

  Nothing says presidential leadership like decisive action.

  And that’s what we saw last night as the producer of the anti-Islam film was arrested for violating probation.

  This was the same guy who was blamed for the terrorist attack on our Benghazi outpost that left four Americans dead . . .

  Yes, this arrest has nothing to do with the film that Obama and crew idiotically pinned on the Middle East mob!

  No, this is just a coincidence, it’s all about probation!

  Yeah—and I’m five-foot-ten.

  Okay, okay, I admit it—I’m five-eleven.

  Anyway, this filmmaker gets no bail because he is dangerous. He makes scary films, films that kill people. It’s like The Ring but without the creepy Japanese girl.

  So, where the hell is Hollywood? Shouldn’t this scare the diapers off Alec Baldwin? Matthew Modine, where’s the march for freedom of expression?

  A guy gets arrested over a film?? And Hollywood is dead silent.

  If anyone should be arrested for a film, it should be whoever made Love Actually.

  Streisand, Depp and Clooney, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, where the hell are you people? Hiding under Harvey Weinstein? I know that it’s physically possible.

  Yes, a fat joke about Harvey Weinstein. I would say it’s “too soon,” except I made that joke BEFORE the scandal broke. Little did I know that he used his heft when climbing all over actresses. Now it just doesn’t seem funny anymore.

  October 25, 2012

  Looking back, it’s amazing how Harvey Weinstein really played a role in keeping liberals in power. They really do owe him a lot. No wonder they kept their mouths shut when he roamed the Hollywood Hills like a rutting, rabid boar.

  So you know that TV movie about killing bin Laden, which airs two days before the election? It’s now being reedited to make the president’s role more prominent. According to the New York Times, Obama backer Harvey Weinstein, who owns the rights to the film, personally stepped in to help recut it to strengthen Mr. Obama’s role.

  Weinstein and director John Stockwell deny the changes are politically motivated.

  I called myself for a response, which was: “Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!”

  So, with Obama in trouble, Weinstein reedits to give Obama more credit. Just a coincidence? Yes. So is getting wet in the rain.

  Look, we already know Mitt Romney is running not just against Obama, but against the Hollywood arm of his own publicity machine.

  But it raises questions, like why can you politicize bin Laden and not Benghazi? Obama takes credit for one, and avoids responsibility for
the other.

  What happens if this films triggers mob violence? This administration blamed Benghazi on a film that inspired Islamic outrage. Will Weinstein be arrested if this happens with his flick? It’s a good question, since he’s been silent on the subject of free expression, while the anti-Muslim filmmaker blamed for Benghazi sweats in jail.

  Perhaps Harvey could keep him company. Heck, they could watch the movie together.

  Who knew I was predicting Harvey’s downfall for an entirely different reason!

  As usual, Hollywood treats history as toilet paper. This film was a break with fact of Oliver Stone proportions. But dammit, it’s not political! So I guess the “Reagan saves the West from the brutal scourge of global communism” movie will be out any day now?

  March 6, 2013

  On March 5, we saw misty-eyed left-wing hacks pay tribute to a dead tyrant. Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Jimmy Carter, Joe Kennedy, all shower Hugo Chávez with wreaths of blithering babble.

  But the winner in the Chávez dribble Olympics is the nobody at the Nation who wrote this: “The biggest problem Venezuela faced during his rule was not that Chávez was authoritarian, but that he wasn’t authoritarian enough.” Tell that to the dead.

  While it’s rude to bag on the dead man, it’s more off-putting to lionize a bad man. The default cliché that infects all lefties is that Hugo was David to our Goliath. Even though this Dave stole billions of dollars fostering a murder rate that dwarfs Chicago’s.

  When Oliver Stone and Sean Penn weep over a man who demonizes America, their message is simple: We agree with him.

  What perverted minds these celebrities have. It’s like women who fall in love with killers on death row. In the end, it’s all about the desperately low opinion they have of themselves—an opinion we all share.

  The equation seems to be, “I’m a piece of crap, so I have to fall in love with someone who also sees me as a piece of crap.”

  The fact is, Hugo was the least popular Hugo since the Yugoslavian national vehicle. Maybe all these Hollywood ghouls should be forced to drive them just to remind themselves what amazing tools they truly are.

  Funny—Penn, Stone, or any of the other Chávistas who lionized this low-rent despot never loved the man so much that they actually moved there. They apparently preferred the living hell of America under Bush, Obama, and now Trump. Go figure.

  Hugo’s legacy still lives on, as Venezuela is in a slow-motion descent into hell. Citizens can’t afford toilet paper—as their currency is actually worth less than the paper used to wipe asses. Due to rationing of food, citizens have resorted to eating their pets, as their president happily eats a meat pie DURING an actual live televised address. This is the epitome of true socialism: Cling to an idea as the world around you crumbles. Because as long as you’re at the top, you’ll never go hungry. This is a truth conveniently ignored by Hollywood [maybe because their own means of survival is so similar]. They choose to embrace the romanticized notion of the revolutionary, while overlooking the pile of victims left behind.

  March 26, 2013

  This monologue is a response to a putrid antigun music video Jim Carrey made, in which he mocked the late Charlton Heston for his work with the NRA. The big joke that the video showcased was that Heston liked guns to make up for his manhood. I know—brilliant. But I get it—knocking Carrey for unoriginality is like knocking shit for stinking.

  So yesterday, I nailed has-been Jim Carrey for a skit attacking rural Americans and Charlton Heston, a man who cannot respond because he’s dead. It was vile stuff—mocking a dead man—and it vainly tried to be disguised as edgy, implying that gun owners compensate for the lack of manhood with guns.

  So I guess our Navy SEALs are all neutered?

  What are the chances Carrey would ever say any of this brave stuff to a Navy SEAL? Or a SWAT cop? You think his face is all twisted now . . .

  Now, I don’t expect depth from a roiling bucket of sewage. Gun rights were never a core issue for me, but Carrey and tools like him made it one. This is Hollywood with its slip showing.

  Carrey’s video shows what they really think of flyover America. They hate you. To them, you’re all white rednecks. When he mocks a dead and decent man . . . Dude, I get that you are a clown, but at least hit someone who can hit back, you simpering tool.

  I think even a dead Charlton Heston may be more than a match for this mugging maggot, who seems incapable of picking on anyone who can stand up to him.

  And Hollywood, where the hell are you? If you worked with Heston or respected his work in civil rights, say something. How can you let this odious twerp defile Heston’s memory? You should regurgitate Carrey like a cat upchucking a crusted fur ball.

  Carrey has not made a good film in years, which is why he is a marionette trying to please his liberal puppeteers. He’s desperate.

  But forget your thoughts on guns. His cruelty reveals how cloistered Hollywood is. Carrey thought his crap would be welcome. Beneath Jim’s phony New Age persona, he is as hateful as the KKK, and his self-esteem is so low he cannot go a moment without feeding it, which is why, when he is called out, he hides. And he hides behind a gun. He has armed security, which by his own logic means he has tiny genitals.

  Carrey’s reputation and career have steadily declined—proof that the public likes a clown only if the clown isn’t an asshole. What he did to Heston was unforgivable—especially coming from a toad who couldn’t act his way out of bed. It is pretty funny: Heston’s been dead for a while, but he has a brighter future in films than Carrey.

  But here’s one reason I love social media: It exposes jerks like Jim, who posts his noxious twaddle for all to see. Twitter exposes the soft simplemindedness of the celebrities. They undo everything their publicists try to mask. The mysterious is replaced by the moronic. The publicity machine used to be able to hide the asshole that lurked behind the poster-boy persona. Now it’s virtually impossible—because there are now too many avenues for jackasses to expose themselves [I’m going to leave that comment without an obvious punch line].

  We hear a lot about bullying—it’s the go-to issue for celebrities who want to appear to care. On one hand, they’ll tell you how to live your life, and on the other, crap all over the dead, and, of course, gun-toting Middle America.

  Now, I am going to go out on a limb and say I’m against bullying. But I’m also going to go out on a shorter limb and call b.s. on all the antibullying campaigns featuring well-off stars and starlets who keep their mouths shut when there’s far worse crap going on in their own industry. I also LOVE how celebrities always portray themselves in interviews as the “geek” or “ugly duckling” in high school. You know, that’s true maybe 5 percent of the time.

  I have no science to back that up, just my gut, which is 98 percent more accurate than science. I also have no science to back up that stat either, but now that it’s published in a book, it’s as good as gold.

  April 12, 2013

  So Jane Fonda is playing First Lady Nancy Reagan in an upcoming film called The Butler. And some veterans are ticked off, given that Fonda’s most famous picture isn’t a moving one, but a single photo of her seated on an antiaircraft battery aimed at us. She claims she’s going to play Nancy Reagan fairly, with no cheap shots. Yes, and dogs know Esperanto.

  I try to work in a reference to Esperanto whenever I can. I actually speak it. But because no one else alive actually can, you’ll never know if that’s true or not.

  A navy veteran has started to boycott the movie. But Jane had a mocking message for him. Quote, “Get a life,” unquote.

  That’s exactly what she said. When asked about it by the Hollywood Reporter, she added, “If it creates hoopla, it will cause more people to see the movie.”

  You could likely argue the opposite. Who wants to see a movie by an asshole! I’m sure many Vietnam vets would love to “get a life”—especially the ones killed by the enemy Jane cheered on. Both her responses—telling a vet to “get a life” after he put
his on the line for jackasses like Jane Fonda, as well as saying “bad publicity is better than no publicity”—reveal the depth of Fonda’s thinking. There isn’t any.

  The film is distributed by the Weinstein brothers, who are about as respectful of conservatives as some rappers are of women.

  I could rewrite this sentence to “The film is distributed by the Weinstein brothers, who are about as respectful of conservatives as some Weinsteins are of women.” In a way, I owe an apology to rappers for including them in the same sentence as the Weinsteins.

  Which is why John Cusack, a lefty, is playing Nixon, and Robin Williams plays Dwight Eisenhower. I’m surprised they didn’t get Roseanne to play Kissinger.

  It’s all done on purpose to generate publicity by upsetting the right people, i.e., the right. The movie gains mojo by satisfying the smirking left.

  So, let them—who cares about these fools?

  Look, we know this is a casting stunt meant to create an uproar. But telling a man who served his country to get a life when his angry response is exactly what you wanted makes you a jerk.

  But it’s Jane Fonda. She’s had forty years of practice. Expecting her to change now is like expecting opera from a toad.

  I could tell I was probably hungover when I wrote this—that last line is very hackneyed: “That’s like expecting X from a Y,” in which “Y” is incapable of actually delivering “X.” When I don’t feel like thinking too hard about something, I end up falling back on that construction, and I am not proud of it. It’s my version of a 7-Eleven burrito. Yeah, you could get something better, but you’re there, and they’re cheap and easy, so . . .