Skip to content

S P E C I A L - N O T I C E S . . .

MARIZELA PEREZ IS STILL MISSING: For the latest news on the search for this young lady, please visit the special website that has been set-up: Her cousin, Michelle Malkin has more pictures of her here.
For The Latest News on the KIMBERLIN / RAUHAUSER SAGA: Follow John Hoge's blog HOGEWASH. He's doing one huckuva job covering the story.
RING-A-DING-DING! & DOOBY-DOOBY-DOO! -In honor of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Francis Albert Sinatra [born 12-DEC-1915], Friend In The Ether Pundette has set up a website, SINATRA CENTENARY, where she'll be celebrating for all of 2015. And Mark Steyn is doing his own list: Sinatra Song of the Century.

Is Helter Skelter Coming Down Fast?

02 September 2015 @ 08:31

Newrouter asks the question over in the Comments section of a post by Darleen Click: ‘is america in a race war?’ [apparently, NR has an aversion to capital letters].

Friend In The Ether Ernst Schreiber responded: ‘I don’t think so’.

I would agree with Ernst: no Race War yet, although the Left is trying to incite one.

But, so far, enough people haven’t joined that cause and, in fact, the blatant actions of the Radical Blacks may be turning-off enough people so that the race situation will not escalate into Helter Skelter.

Like their ice cream, Americans seem to like their Despotism soft rather than hard.

When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instant of death we cannot permit any deviation. In the old days the heretic walked to the stake still a heretic, proclaiming his heresy, exulting in it. Even the victim of the Russian purges could carry rebellion locked up in his skull as he walked down the passage waiting for the bullet. But we make the brain perfect before we blow it out.

—’O’Brien’, Nineteen Eighty-Four

BREAKING: Pigs Fly! – I Agree With Sid Blumenthal

01 September 2015 @ 09:44

What a crazy, mixed-up, upside down world!

From The Washington Examiner, Pete Kasperowicz reporting, we learn:

Hillary Clinton confidant Sid Blumenthal had nothing but bad things to say about incoming House Speaker John Boehner on the day Republicans won back the House from Democrats in 2010, according to new emails released by the State Department late Monday.

"Boehner is despised by the younger, more conservative members of the House Republican Conference," Blumenthal wrote to Clinton. "They are repelled by his personal behavior."

"He is louche, alcoholic, lazy, and without any commitment to any principle," he added.

According to, "louche" means "dubious, shady, disreputable."

"He is not Gingrich, the natural leader of a ‘revolution,’ riding the crest into power," Blumenthal continued as he described Boehner, R-Ohio. "He is careworn and threadbare, banal and hollow, holding nobody’s enduring loyalty."

He also said Boehner "twitches" if the conservative base makes "gestures that might undermine his position."

"Boehner is neither feared nor loved," he goes on. "He’s a would-be DeLay without the whip. He’s the one at the end of a lash."

Blumenthal said then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is "relatively in the same position in the Senate."

In My Defense: Hey…a broken Anti-Semite, Apparatchik clock is right at least once a day.

‘Equality In All Things!’: Empowering Misery

31 August 2015 @ 20:54

One of the most dangerous beliefs to hold is the one that sees Equality in all things as desirable.

People are not equal.

They are individuals with varying levels of talent and abilities.

This is Human Nature.

Encouraging everyone to act as though they are equal in all things is destructive to the Soul because it sets people on a course that can only end in Frustration and Misery.

This is especially true when it comes to the relationship between Men and Women, who are different in so many ways, whose differences, when combined in a monogamous relationship, create something greater than the two parts standing alone.

Stacy McCain understands this very well:

…What feminist ideology tells young women they should do — being sexually “empowered” and expecting this empowerment to lead to “equality” in their relationships — is the exact opposite of what common sense based on an actual knowledge of human nature would advise them to do.

The accumulated wisdom of centuries still holds true. If you want to be loved, be lovable, and if you want to be respected, be respectable. As I tell young women, don’t just “play hard to get,” be hard to get. A girl who acts like trash thereby forfeits the right to complain that guys treat her like trash. One of the worst things feminism has done is to attack the sexual “double standard” by encouraging women to lower their standards, to screw around heedlessly and to view short-term “relationships” as an acceptable substitute for actual commitment.

This strategy of “equality” doesn’t work to women’s advantage. It has never worked and will never work, and any girl who plays that game is a fool….


Will feminists ever wake up and realize that human nature is an immutable reality impervious to ideology? Viewing sexual problems as a quasi-Marxist struggle between two classes — men and women as collective groups — does not necessarily help any individual woman and may arguably make her life more difficult….

Oh, there’s no doubt about whether or not it will make the individual woman’s life more difficult because such views deny Reality and, anytime you deny Reality, you set yourself up for Misery.

Also: the result of women viewing the world in this way also makes men’s lives more difficult Spiritually, because it encourages them to treat women with less respect.

Please do take the time to click here and read the whole of Stacy’s post.

[I apologize for not expanding on my ideas further, but I’m feeling a bit under the weather this Evening.]

#Denali Is A Mountain In Egypt?

30 August 2015 @ 20:11

Idaho, but I’ll Alaska.


On 28 Obamacus [old calendar: ‘August’] in the Year Siz, Anno Salvator, Julius Obamacus Nero Caesar [formerly: Barack Hussein Soetero-Obama] Anti-President of The United States Of America, Fearless Leader and Duce [Dou’che?], Lowerer Of The Seas, Defender Of The Islamic Faith Cult, Apologist Of All That Is American, Sovereign Of The Stimulus, Healer Of The Earth, Duke Of No Nukes, Sovereign Restorer Of Images, Messiah Of The Lay-Abouts, Sovereign Organizer Of Communities, Duke Of Alinsky, Sovereign and Most Honourable Provider Of Health Care, Grand Poohba of the Most Venerable Order of Narcissists, Financial Adviser-In-Chief, Physician-In-Chief, Linguist-In-Chief, Personal Trainer-In-Chief, Supreme Spiculate of Spite, Lord Of The Food Stamps, Defender Of The Debt, Earl Of Tantrum, King of the Irony Throne of the Seven Kingdoms in The Game Of Drones, Kings of Rooseveltia, Supreme Poetry Master, Doctor of Crazies, Injun-In-Chief [Injun Name: ‘Throws-Like-Girl’], etc., spaketh to the peoples of his realm the pablum of putrefying purulency and declared:

Mt. McKinley will be renamed Denali


The late President, who, unlike ‘Obama’, brought much financial prosperity to all Americans, was unavailable for comment.

We have received the following message from The Whitey House:

The United State has ALWAYS been at war
with Mt. William McKinley.

Triple Doubleplusgood!

Also, they want to remind you to support the Iran Treaty because it will protect American National Security forever and ever and ever — no really!

Image by Bob Belvedere

Image by Bob Belvedere

-[tip of the fedora to Niels Lesniewski]

Sinatra 100th: The Best Performances – 16-14

29 August 2015 @ 19:18

Sinatra100th-Logo-009-250gxRing-A-Ding-Ding, everybody!

Here at TCOTS, we’re celebrating Frank Sinatra’s 100th Birthday by counting down what I think are his 100 best performances on Vinyl and CD. All of the songs on the List have been released on either one or both mediums. Interspersed with the countdown will be Honorable Mentions that didn’t make the List and a countdown of what I think are his best albums.

Francis Albert will be your pilot and Bobby Bell your navigator.

So sit back easy in your easy chair, fasten your seatbelts, and let’s take-off in the blue…

16 — More

Music & Lyrics: Riz Ortolani, Nino Oliviero, Marcello Ciorciolini, Norman Newell
Recorded: 12 June 1964
From the album It Might As Well Be Spring

I may be the only Sinatra Aficionado in the whole World who would rate this performance so high on a ‘Best Of Sinatra’ list.  I say that because my love for this recording when stated always brings me strange looks.  People are either convinced I’ve lost it or am under the influence or they heard wrong.

Well…if I have to strike out alone on this one, then so be it: this is one of Frank’s greatest performances.

Listen to his phrasing – one is reminded of his performance on The Way You Look Tonight: Frank understands the subject thoroughly and conveys exactly the right emotions through pitch appropriate singing and dead solid perfect emphasis on the right words and phrases [two examples: both times he sings ‘My arms long to hooold you so’].

15 — Please Be Kind

Music & Lyrics: Sammy Cahn, Saul Chaplin
Recorded: 2 October 1962
From the album Sinatra-Basie

The Basie-ist of Frank’s collaborations with The Count – a bit of Kansas City Swing that makes you want to sip a cocktail, put your around your gal and give her a squeeze with one arm, while you snap you fingers with t’other.  You want to take a time machine back to the early 1960’s, well then, this is the essential soundtrack.

It’s all so grand…

14 — You Make Me Feel So Young

Music & Lyrics: Joseph Myrow, Mack Gordon
Recorded: 9 January 1956
From the album Songs For Swingin’ Lovers

What a way to start off an album!  Right away you know you’re taking a journey with Romance at your side.  And what a mothery time you will have swingin’ down the lane.

As Mark Steyn remarks:

On January 9th 1956, Frank Sinatra went into the not yet famous Studio A of Capitol Records at Hollywood and Vine in Los Angeles for the first of a handful of sessions for a new album. Released that March, Songs For Swingin’ Lovers would become not just a bestseller but the great defining title of the LP era. It declares itself in its opening number – a short, brassy Nelson Riddle vamp in what he liked to call “the tempo of the heartbeat”, and then:

You Make Me Feel So Young
You make me feel ‘so spring has sprung
And every time I see you grin
I’m such a happy in

And by the second chorus he’s an even happier in-di-vi-du-al: as Frankologist Will Friedwald puts it, “You Make Me Feel So Young” “modulates from mere cheerfulness to exalted rapture”

…Alec Wilder called it “a simply great rhythm song” with “irresistible vitality” that says “get out of my way till I finish”. Can’t argue with that….

I wouldn’t even try.

BONUS — You Make Me Feel So Young [Live]

Music & Lyrics: Joseph Myrow, Mack Gordon
Recorded: Sometime between January 26-February 1, 1966
From the album Sinatra At The Sands

This arrangement and the Frankisms contained within together form the live version Francis would perform for the rest of his career.  And, unlike some others, this one works perfectly.

From ‘You make me young’ to ‘Be-cause you make me feel so / Man, I just feel so’, what he does fits so wonderfully – it’s a koo-koo thing.

See you next Weekend as we head-off again to Bobsville.

Don’t forget to also keep checking out
Pundette’s Sinatra 100 countdown,
Ms Evi’s Sinatra Celebration,
& Mark Steyn’s Sinatra Songs Of The Century.
It’s a swingin’ world.

If you’re having trouble tracking down any of the performances on this List, contact me at Robert[dot]Belvedere[at]gmail[dot]com and I might be able to help you.


On Pretentious Conservatives and The Donald

27 August 2015 @ 14:37

Mike Hendrix, proprietor of Cold Fury, responds to a member of our side [Robert Tracinsky, directly; Ben Domenech, indirectly], who, despite his protestations, is clearly a member of what I like to call ‘The Conservative Beautiful People’ – or, at the very least, bucking for membership in that snobbish group:

Tracinsky then gets busy hurling the usual insults at Trump enthusiasts (“low-information voters,” “Archie Bunker types,” “single-issue anti-immigration fanatics,” “outright racists,” and “genteel quasi-racists,” you’ll be unsurprised to learn), which insults sound a whole hell of a lot like the Left’s perception of Republicans generally no matter who’s slinging them. He declares himself not remotely an Establishmentarian type, which I would have mostly agreed with before reading this tripe. Then comes the denouement: “So how many of these people are there, how committed are they, and how bitter will they be if their newfound champion doesn’t win?”

Robert, Robert, you still don’t get it. We expect nothing from the Republican Party; we want nothing from them. We are laughing at them. We aren’t bitter at all, except over the larger tragedy of seeing the nation we loved destroyed before our very eyes; the (self-)destruction of the Republicrat Party is pretty small beer compared with that. We are enjoying watching them (and their pet-poodle pundits) goad themselves into hysterical paroxysms over the unlikely spectacle of a wealthy blowhard running rings around them by merely expounding on some simple but heretofore-forbidden truths, and never expressing the slightest remorse over giving the business-as-usual types the shrieking fantods along the way. I doubt there are all that many of us who think we’re going to be saving anything with Trump or without him; there’s not a lot left that’s worth the saving anyway, and we’ve been burned way too many times to have much faith in mere politics to provide much more than its usual distraction. And if we do manage to at least re-establish some reasonable facsimile of a border in the process of having a few laughs at their expense, well, what’s not to like?

For an awful lot of us, although certainly not all, Trump is a means to an end these guys just can’t seem to grasp. The odds of us ever marching dutifully off again en masse to vote for whichever GOP empty suit they try to cram down our throats this time are precisely nil. If Trump is nominated, we might vote for him…or we mightn’t. Mostly, we are amusing ourselves while we wait for le deluge, a deluge that’s coming no matter which authoritarian Statist gets elected. In the meantime, we get to see at least some of our viewpoints openly expressed and affirmed without fear or shame, and that’s worth something to us too. If that gets the Establishmentarians all hot and bothered and pissing themselves in public, well…good. It’s really not complicated or difficult to understand at all, for anyone who’s been paying close enough attention for the last, oh, decade or so.

Dead solid perfect.

Friend In The Ether, Physics Geek’s comment is spot-on, as well:

The snobs and elitists have come out in force this cycle. I’ll simply reiterate what Empire of Jeff said vis a vis Trump:

You “conservative” “pundits” still don’t get it: Trump isn’t our candidate. He’s our murder weapon.And the GOP is our victim. We good, now?

At the same time, we must respect those who support Mr. Trump. They have legitimate concerns that the candidate is expressing, as Mike says, without the ‘slightest remorse’. He’s a breath of fresh air.

The Tracinskys and Ben Domenechs can denigrate The Donald and his supporters all they want and it may – just may – get them invited to the ‘right’ cocktail parties and asked to give speeches to think-tanks for some good denarii and get them favorable reviews when they write their ‘earth-shaking’ political treatises, but are such blood-soaked recompenses worth the price of one’s Soul, of becoming mere Useful Idiots of the Useful Idiots of the Left [aka: the GOP and Conservative Establishments], of betraying the struggle to Restore Freedom and Ordered Liberty?

Please do take the time to click here and read the rest of Mike’s post [and I urge you to make his joint a regular stop on your travels in The Ether].

TCOTS News EXCLUSIVE: Bill And Hillary Prophesied In 1915!

25 August 2015 @ 19:39

It’s True!

Through one of it’s most dependable souses, TCOTS News has obtained a book written by Dr. William Healy that predicted the coming of Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham [aka: the heads of the Organized Crime Family known as ‘La Cosa Clinton’].

And the good Doctor did this back in 1915!

Dr. Healy was an expert in his field, being Director of Chicago’s Psychopathic Institute at the time.

TCOTS News plans to make the text of this Gaia-shattering document as soon as it’s Editors get off the binge they’re currently on.

Book Cover-Pathological-lying-and-swindling-001x

We ReportYou Deride

‘What Would Make Your Lab Happy?’ / ‘Another 50 Livers A Week’

25 August 2015 @ 14:17

Question asked by undercover actor-reporter; answered by the CEO of StemExpress, Cate Dyer [hmmm…last name fits].

The latest video has been released by the Center For Medical Progress in it’s investigation of Planned Parenthood and the Abortion Industry.

From Life News, Cheryl Sullenger reporting, we learn:

Today’s installment focuses on one luncheon meeting with actors posing as representatives of a biotech company and StemExpress’ CEO Cate Dyer.

Dyer explains how her relationship with Planned Parenthood has been a profitable one because of the increasing demand for fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood provides the volume they need to keep up with the demand, which StemExpress struggles to fill. Fetal livers, in particular are in such great demand that her business cannot keep up.

Dyer was seeking a partnership with the actors, hoping to increase her supply of fetal tissue products.

“What would make your lab happy?” the buyer asked.

“Another fifty livers a week,” Dyer responded without hesitation.

“We’re working with, you know, almost triple digit number of clinics. So it’s a lot on volume, and we still need more than what we do. So it’s a lot,” she said.

Sure is, Ms. Mengele.

From The Weekly Standard, John McCormick reporting, we learn that Dyer is one sick CEO:

There are no graphic images in the video, but Dyer’s comments about shipping the severed intact “calvarium” or skull of an aborted baby are bonechilling.

StemExpress: I know we get requests for neural [tissue]. It’s the hardest thing in the world to ship.

Buyer: You do it as the whole calvarium.

StemExpress: That’s it, yeah, that’s the easiest way. And I mean we’ve actually had good success with that in the past.

Buyer: Yeah, Make sure the eyes are closed!

StemExpress: [Loud Laughter] Tell the lab it’s coming. So they don’t open the box and go, “Oh God!” [Laughter] So yeah, wheras so many of the academic labs cannot fly like that. They’re just not capable.

Buyer: Why is that? I don’t understand that.

StemExpress: It’s almost like they don’t want to know where it comes from. I can see that. Where they’re like, “We need limbs, but no hands and feet need to be attached.” […] They want you to take it all off, like, “Make it so that we don’t know what it is.”

Buyer: Yeah. Bone the chicken for me and then I’ll eat it.

StemExpress: That’s it. But we know what it is [Laughter]. […] Their lab techs freak out, and have meltdowns, and so it’s just like, yeah.

Har, har, har, Geschäftsführer. Or do you prefer: Tovarishcha Glavnyy Ispolnitel’nyy Direktor?

To the Leftist, Human Life is cheap — unless he or she can score a good deal for the organs and tissues of it’s dead babies.

If we and our elected officials do not take the proper actions soon and shut down this Industry Of Murder, don’t be surprised if some on the Pro-Life side don’t decide to take matters into their own hands.

And, if they do because of our inaction, because we refused to enforce already existing laws, because we didn’t come to the defense of the Innocents, can we then damn them?

Matteo - Massacre Of The Innocents 02dx

Meet ‘Toby Miles’ Of The IRS

25 August 2015 @ 08:22

Actually, you already know her.

‘”Her”, you say? But, Bob, that’s a male name!’

True. That’s the brilliance of using such a handle as your super-spy secret e-mail name!

And Lois Lerner [aka: ‘Toby Miles’] is, indeed, brilliant – brilliantly arrogant, brilliantly haughty and shrewish, brilliantly Corrupt – either that or maybe she’s trans-gendered [if that’s the case, then I apologize in advance for being such a horrible cis-normative bigot].

From The Washington Times, Stephen Dinan reporting, we learn:

Lois Lerner had yet another personal email account used to conduct some IRS business, the tax agency confirmed in a new court filing late Monday that further complicates the administration’s efforts to be transparent about Ms. Lerner’s actions during the tea party targeting scandal.

Leftist-Mastermind-001cxThe admission came in an open-records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that has sued to get a look at emails Ms. Lerner sent during the targeting.

IRS lawyer Geoffrey J. Klimas told the court that as the agency was putting together a set of documents to turn over to Judicial Watch, it realized Ms. Lerner had used yet another email account, in addition to her official one and another personal one already known to the agency.

“In addition to emails to or from an email account denominated ‘Lois G. Lerner’ or ‘Lois Home,’ some emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s request may have been sent to or received from a personal email account denominated ‘Toby Miles,'” Mr. Klimas told Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is hearing the case.

It is unclear who Toby Miles is, but Mr. Klimas said the IRS has concluded that was “a personal email account used by Lerner.”

Well…Lerner’s Husband is named Michale Miles, so it’s possible that Lois is transitioning over to being ‘Toby’. Or: perhaps the couple are kinky and one of their sex fantasy games involves devices that strap-on, IYKWIMAITYD.

If either of these two scenarios is true, well then, I think we should respect their Lifestyle Choices, man-up, and move along.

The Corruption, it burns.

The New Party Line: Hillary As Victim?

24 August 2015 @ 09:02

One gets the feeling, after reading Wesley Pruden’s editorial, that La Cosa Clinton is setting someone up for a fall in a desperate effort to save Hillary’s campaign for the Presidency [tip of the fedora to Doug Ross][emphasis mine]:

Hillary might not be the first target. She can always find somebody else to throw under the bus or feed to the alligators.

The lady has been saying for weeks that nothing on her email server was classified, and recently she revised and extended that to “nothing was classified at the time it was put it on the server.” Now she revises and extends still further, arguing that the security classifications are confusing and subject to interpretation. “She was at worst a passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became classified,” a spokesman “splains.” This may be the first time in her life that Hillary, who has been called many things, has been called “passive.”

Hillary-WickedWitch-001xOf course, you can’t put anything past the Rodham/Clintons. They are utterly shameless in their rabid hunger for Power. They wouldn’t recognize Virtue if it slapped them upside the head with a 2×4. So don’t be surprised if it turns out this is exactly what they’re doing. And the Left has a long and sordid history of portraying themselves as victims.

The question is: Will it work this time?

A related question: Is it The Jarrett Junto [aka: La Cosa Obama] behind the effort to destroy Hillary’s chances?

‘Mommy Hates You Better!’ – Feminists And Their Mothers

23 August 2015 @ 19:25

Many of us often say that Feminists have ‘Daddy Issues’ but Stacy McCain may, I think, be on to something here:

…Having spent more than a year researching radical feminism [BOB: How he’s kept his Sanity while doing so, I’ll never know], however, I always point out that many feminists have even worse “Mommy issues.”

Bob in his office.

Bob in his office.

You discern this, for example, in Andrea Dworkin’s account of her own youth. She didn’t much seem to mind her father, who worked very hard to support their family, but expressed contempt for her mother. It is easy to find similar expressions of anti-maternal resentments in the autobiographical writings of other feminists. Either the mother is presented as a pathetic figure — weak, ineffective, dominated or brutalized by the father — or else the mother is domineering and manipulative, trying to force her rebellious daughter to comply with a socially approved gender role that the young feminist rejects. From the daughter’s perspective, the mother’s life is unworthy. She rejects her mother as role model, and this refusal to emulate her mother becomes the emotional fuel of the daughter’s feminist politics.

Grant that there are mothers who are also feminists. Yet the more closely you pay attention to the feminist movement, the more you notice how this anti-maternal sentiment provides so much of the energy of activists….


Please do take the time to click here and read Stacy’s full post.

Blog Post Title Of The Year – Courtesy Of @DonSurber

23 August 2015 @ 18:31

I have seen a better one so far in 2015 and I have no doubt I will not see a better one before that big old ball drops in Times Square:


To make matters even happier: Don follows the title with a grand appreciation of Mr. Astaire.

A highlight:

Astaire worked hard. While his style looked simple and easy-going, he was a perfectionist who put in many hours of rehearsal. He had a good ear for music. By 18, he was on Broadway as part of a patriotic review. Throughout the 1920s they appeared in musicals with music by George and Ira Gershwin, Jerome Kern, Cole Porter, and others. Their musicals also played in the West End.

Hollywood was their next logical move. He signed with RKO, but he flunked the screen test, with a report tersely writing him off, “Can’t act. Slightly bald. Also dances.”

But David O. Selznick, head of production at RKO, did not write the dancer off, noting in a memo, “I am uncertain about the man, but I feel, in spite of his enormous ears and bad chin line, that his charm is so tremendous that it comes through even on this wretched test.”

Please do take the time to click here and read the rest of this warm appreciation of one of the most talented people America has ever produced.

Speaking of Heaven: take it away Irving…

Bob Recommends: Witchcraft – #Sinatra Song of the Century #59 by @MarkSteynOnline

23 August 2015 @ 01:57

Witchcraft: Sinatra Song of the Century #59 :: SteynOnline.

Bob Recommends: #Sinatra Centenary #35 Sinatra swings an über-standard by @Pundette

23 August 2015 @ 01:56

Sinatra Centenary: #35: Sinatra swings an über-standard.

Bob Recommends: Frank #Sinatra: Stardust by @MsEBL

23 August 2015 @ 01:55

EBL: Frank Sinatra: Stardust.

Sinatra 100th: The Best Performances – 19-17

22 August 2015 @ 19:31

Sinatra100th-Logo-009-250gxRing-A-Ding-Ding, everybody!

Here at TCOTS, we’re celebrating Frank Sinatra’s 100th Birthday by counting down what I think are his 100 best performances on Vinyl and CD. All of the songs on the List have been released on either one or both mediums. Interspersed with the countdown will be Honorable Mentions that didn’t make the List and a countdown of what I think are his best albums.

Francis Albert will be your pilot and Bobby Bell your navigator.

So sit back easy in your easy chair, fasten your seatbelts, and let’s take-off in the blue…

19 — Almost Like Being In Love

Music & Lyrics: Alan Lerner, Frederick Loewe
Recorded: 22 March 1961
From the album Come Swing With Me

Whenever I’m a bit down, whenever Life gnaws too much on my Soul, I most often turn to Frank for a kick in the patootie to remind me that it ain’t all bad.

And this is one of the first recordings I always turn to [the rest being other Francis and Billy May performances]…

18 — The Gal That Got Away / It Never Entered My Mind

Music & Lyrics: Harold Arlen, Ira Gershwin / Lorenz Hart, Richard Rodgers
Recorded: 08 April 1981
From the album She Shot Me Down

Frank had recorded both of these songs separately, but they magically came together because of a falling-out he had with his long time pianist, Bill Miller, as Mark Steyn explains:

… Sinatra had fallen out with his longtime pianist Bill Miller — mercifully only temporarily. Nevertheless, in Miller’s absence, he put aside “One For My Baby (And One More For The Road)”, which must surely have been painful for him. But the song never quite worked as well without Miller at the piano, and Sinatra was too good a musician not to know that. So he needed a new number for the saloon-song moment in his live show. And somewhere along the way he came up with the idea of a medley….

in 1955, Frank took another crack at the song, this time with Nelson Riddle for the album In The Wee Small Hours. And in the late Seventies, it was this Riddle chart for “It Never Entered My Mind” that he wished to pair with Riddle’s chart for “The Gal That Got Away”. The only problem was that, aside from falling out with Bill Miller, Frank had also fallen out with Nelson Riddle.

So it fell to Don Costa to slow the songs down and stitch them together — by inserting “It Never Entered” into the middle of “Got Away”. Vincent Falcone was the pianist who’d replaced Miller and he was told by Costa on the day they were due to do the medley that they were keeping their options open as to whether they’d do both songs with the full orchestra, or “Gal” with the band and “Never Entered” with just the piano. The final call would be Frank’s, obviously. “We were rehearsing the medley, and we got to the section where we went into ‘It Never Entered My Mind’,” recalled Falcone, “and he waved the orchestra off and he pointed to me. I played it alone with him.” The young pianist got through it, and then they rehearsed the number with the full band:

I fully expected that when I came back to do the show that night, it would be with the orchestra. But, just to be on the safe side, I went home after the rehearsal and woodshedded the accompaniment. I practiced it until I knew it backward, forward, and sideways. If I was going to play this thing alone, I would know exactly how it went, and how I wanted to do it.

I didn’t even think of it again until I got back there that night. The solo accompaniment had slipped my mind until Frank Sinatra’s pal Jilly Rizzo came out of the dressing room and said, ‘Hey kid, you know that medley? Well, Frank wants you to do it. No orchestra. Just you.’ I played it, and Mr S introduced me for the first time. Man, what a feeling. What a rush. My knees shook. Frank Sinatra is recognizing me. This wasn’t Luigi’s in Syracuse. This wasn’t the Park Motor Hotel in Niagara Falls. This was the real thing.

And that’s how they did it ever after….

Thank the Good Lord, I would add.  This is, perhaps, the best example of medley that really works, as if what you’re hearing was actually composed as a single song.

Add to that the fact that it’s clear Francis Albert has lived the lyrics and what you have here is a classic performance for the ages…

17 — TIE

The Tender Trap (Film Version #2)

Music & Lyrics: Sammy Cahn, Jimmy Van Heusen
Recorded: 15 July 1955
From the film The Tender Trap
From the special compilation box Sinatra In Hollywood

This gem is only available in straight audio on a marvelous box set issued a decade or so ago, Sinatra In Hollywood [let us hope the great Charles Granata is able to get it re-issued], which contains music from Frank’s movies from his first all the way to the mid-1960’s.  You can hear it if you watch the film, but it’s nice to be able to add it to a music playlist.  I would highly recommend purchasing this compilation, which is available used on them there Innertubes for anywhere from seventy to two-hundred denarii.

This performance is a more intimate version than the hit single [which is comes in at #34 on my List] and, therefore, hits a lot closer to home vis-a-vie the subject of the lyrics.

Enjoy this recording and getting caught…

[NOTE: The song starts just after the 1:42 mark.]

It Happened In Monterey

Music & Lyrics: Mabel Wayne, Billy Rose
Recorded: 12 January 1956
From the album Songs For Swingin’ Lovers

The lovely Pundette remarked about this recording:

It was written in 1930 by Mabel Wayne (music) and Billy Rose (words). Frank Sinatra and Nelson Riddle pumped new life into it in 1956 when they included it on their phenomenal Songs for Swingin’ Lovers.

Indeed they did, with Frank owning this tune as if it had been written specifically for him.

I cannot tell you exactly why this performance rates so high, but, without think twice, I love it.

See you next Weekend as we head-off again to Bobsville.

Don’t forget to also keep checking out
Pundette’s Sinatra 100 countdown,
Ms Evi’s Sinatra Celebration,
& Mark Steyn’s Sinatra Songs Of The Century.
It’s a swingin’ world.

If you’re having trouble tracking down any of the performances on this List, contact me at Robert[dot]Belvedere[at]gmail[dot]com and I might be able to help you.


Elections 2016: Spot The Loony

22 August 2015 @ 00:26

Put on your thinking tin-foil caps Hobbits and be ready to play


Take it away Mark Steyn and Hugh Hewitt:

HEWITT: And a last quick question – Donald Trump continues to gather momentum. The polls out today showing him now winning in many states where he was behind Hilary before in head-to-head match-ups. Is there a ceiling for Donald Trump?

STEYN: I’m not so sure that there is because the ceiling keeps getting higher. Now at some point everyone bumps up against the ceiling, but it is going higher. And I think the way to look on it, Hugh, is like this – you’ve been quite critical of him. You can say “Oh, this guy is an out-of-control lunatic buffoon” but actually–

HEWITT: I never said that. Let the record be clear.

STEYN: No, no, no. I know you’ve never said that, but a lot of people, but what he’s saying is actually quite sane, where if you think of the so-called sane candidates like Jeb Bush when he talks about illegal immigration as an “act of love” – he may be a sane man, but what he’s saying is far loonier than what Donald Trump is saying….

Poor John Ellis Bush…why bless his little heart.


‘Make Love, Not War’ Triumphant? – #AshleyMadison

21 August 2015 @ 07:59

From the AP [or the ‘Associated Depressed’ as Mark Levin calls it], Jack Gillum and Ted Bridis reporting, we learn:> Hundreds of U.S. government employees — including some with sensitive jobs in the White House, Congress and law enforcement agencies — used Internet connections in their federal offices to access and pay membership fees to the cheating website Ashley Madison, The Associated Press has learned.

Hundreds of U.S. government employees — including some with sensitive jobs in the White House, Congress and law enforcement agencies — used Internet connections in their federal offices to access and pay membership fees to the cheating website Ashley Madison, The Associated Press has learned.

The AP traced many of the accounts exposed by hackers back to federal workers. They included at least two assistant U.S. attorneys; an information technology administrator in the Executive Office of the President; a division chief, an investigator and a trial attorney in the Justice Department; a government hacker at the Homeland Security Department and another DHS employee who indicated he worked on a U.S. counterterrorism response team.

Few actually paid for their services with their government email accounts. But AP traced their government Internet connections — logged by the website over five years — and reviewed their credit-card transactions to identify them. They included workers at more than two dozen Obama administration agencies, including the departments of State, Defense, Justice, Energy, Treasury, Transportation and Homeland Security. Others came from House or Senate computer networks.

The AP is not naming the government subscribers it found because they are not elected officials or accused of a crime. [BOB: It may not be Illegal, but they did it on OUR dime, dingbats, so we have a right to know].

Hackers this week released detailed records on millions of people registered with the website one month after the break-in at Ashley Madison’s parent company, Toronto-based Avid Life Media Inc. The website — whose slogan is, “Life is short. Have an affair” — is marketed to facilitate extra-marital affairs.

Many federal customers appeared to use non-government email addresses with handles such as “sexlessmarriage,” “soontobesingle” or “latinlovers.” Some Justice Department employees appeared to use pre-paid credit cards to help preserve their anonymity but connected to the service from their office computers.

I suppose we should be happy that these employees of the national government are whoring around instead of putting out more Despotic Regulations and creating more Tyranny

‘She Deglided, Um, Because She Didn’t…’: #Hillary2016

20 August 2015 @ 20:06

This afternoon, Clinton Family Soldier Jennifer Palmieri appeared on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show and, well, um, she, um, like, you know…

From The American Mirror, Olaf Ekberg reporting, we learn [worth quoting in full]:

The Clinton campaign is still groping for two sentences to put together to explain why Hillary’s email server was wiped clean.

Campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri appeared on CNN moments ago to try again to come up with an answer. Instead, it was largely rambling and incoherent.

'Leave the server and take the cannoli'.

‘Leave the server and take the cannoli’.

“When did she decide to delete all — you know, half of the emails she effectively engaged in during her four years as secretary of state,” Wolf Blitzer asked Palmieri.

“She had her, um, she had — what happened was she — state department came to all the former secretaries of state last fall to ask for — to ask for whatever records they may have because they realized that, um, uh, they didn’t becau- because, uh, not just Hillary Clinton but other secretaries of state may have used personal email they may not have captured everything.

“So she had, she asked, uh, her lawyers to look at this so she had some legal minds on the case to see which emails were state department and which were personal and, uh, turned over the state department ones, uh, anything that was business related and, and then chose not to retain the ones that she, the ones that were personal,” Palmieri said.

“On that point,” Blitzer responded, “why wouldn’t she want to keep her own email records — maybe there were some fun, cute emails — why would she need to wipe all that clean?”

“She deglided, um, because she didn’t, I mean, these are, these are personal emails and I think that everyone understands even Hillary Clinton gets a zone of privacy and she decided that she, uh, she retains a couple months-worth of emails so you can, you know, so she can, uh, uh, find personal emails she needs to but after that, she doesn’t need them anymore. So, she made this decision, I think is, obviously, you know, she was former secretary of state, so we want to be sure people understand, uh, how she handled classified information when shew as secretary of state, she was very careful with it, she didn’t deal with it online, she dealt with it on hard copy, in meetings, not on the computer,” Palmieri said.

The Mirror has the video here.

After having to put up with La Cosa Clinton and it’s consummate, thoroughgoing, absolute corruption for twenty-five years, I have to admit that I’m enjoying watching them and their rat-faced toadies squirm.

Pardon me while I pop some popcorn, pour a tall bourbon, and deglide through that video several more times.

Hillary-Rodham-BondVillain-LDM-001uSIDENOTE: Methinks 11B40 should be promoted to Chief Of The Fashion Police:

…couture-wise, those pants suits have been morphing into Mrs. Mao suits for a while now. And if you all remember, Mrs. Mao had similar pretensions and hopefully Mrs. Rodham Clinton will have somewhat similar results.

Keep That Hope Alive!

On Abortion, The Threat to the Life of the Mother, And Leftist Narratives

20 August 2015 @ 14:37

In the Comments section of a post by Darleen Click on the whole Abortion issue, Shermlaw remarked:

…many years ago, I asked myself these questions about the “product of conception:”

1. Is it life?

2. Is it human life?

3. Is it innocent human life?

The answers to all three questions are “yes,” and because of that, I cannot see any philosophical basis for destroying it, other than if it’s existence threatens the life of the mother. By that I mean there’s a 100% chance the mother will die absent an abortion. However, the “health of the mother” exception has been expanded to the point of meaninglessness, inasmuch as “health” can be defined as “being severely bummed out because I won’t fit into my prom dress.”

His comment promoted me to finally state a set of thoughts that had been fermenting in my mind for quite some time about the health of the Mother justification that is used to excuse many abortions…

If what is in the womb [the ‘product of conception’] is an innocent Human Life and aborting that child is Murder, then, even if the Mother will die if the Child is carried to term, the Child must not be sacrificed because it will still be Murder to end that Innocent Child’s Life.

Please allow me to explain:

-In the vast majority of cases, said Child is not the product of Rape, so the Mother conceived the Child of her own Free Will with all the positive and negative consequences that adhere to that decision in possible play.

The Mother in this category is responsible for her actions and, if they result in her Death so that the Child will Live, then ‘such is Life’, as the Jews say. She agreed to perform the most Sacred Act a Woman can perform, and she has a duty to fulfill the Agreement she made with The Creator and with Mankind.

-As for the Child in the womb that is the product of Rape and now the Mother’s Life is at stake: here, of course, we find ourselves in a situation where there is no ‘good’ decision, no ‘happy outcome’ possible, no avoidance of Death seemingly possible [although, Miracles, I believe, can happen].

What to do?

The Noble and Honorable thing for the Mother to do is willingly Sacrifice her Life for the sake of the Innocent Child, who did not ask to be Conceived under such violent circumstances, had no say it the event.

The Mother, at least, has had a chance to Live, to dwell for a time on this Earth, but, if we terminate the Innocent Child’s Life, we are denying that Child the Right To Life — denying the Child what the Mother has been Blessed to enjoy, even though it may turn out to have been for only a shortened time.

Also, if you believe in an Afterlife, then, surely, the Mother who makes such a Sacrifice will occupy a special place there in the Loving arms of a Merciful God.

Further, if we terminate this Innocent Human Life in order to save a Life that has had a chance to walk the Earth for a time, then, I believe, we loose a little bit of our Humanity.

We are the Guardians of that Humanity and, I believe, we must be treat it as the Sacred Gift it is, doing all that is required and necessary to preserve it’s existence.

A very lively — to put it mildly — debate ensued over at Protein Wisdom among some of the regulars, which I commend to your attention.

One of those regulars, Cortillaen, made some very spot-on points [FYI When he responds to Dicentra, he’s commenting on her response to my remarks above]:

It always amazes me how much people can argue around abortion. Around, mind you, not about. Most people stay away from the very simple question that decides the entire issue. Pro-abortionists (can you really be called “pro-choice” when you support one person taking away every possible choice another person might ever make?) are desperate to avoid the question because it’s a loser for them, hence “women’s health” and all the other BS euphemisms and fraction-of-a-percent fringe cases. Pro-lifers (“pro-lifists”? Whatever.) are far too often caught up in the abortionist rhetoric and miss the real matter at hand. Easy to do when one side has the overwhelming support of the only media a very large portion of the country sees, but ultimately self-defeating.

Ah, right, I mentioned the one question, didn’t I? Funny thing, it isn’t even about abortion. Abortion policy is a byproduct, not the central issue. A lot of the things we like to argue about are that way, actually. Yeah, I’m just stringing you on now, so here it is: When does life begin? There are plenty of ways to phrase it, but that’s the simplest. Everything about abortion, every last thing, is answered by that question. All you have to do is answer it, then consult the laws we already have. Ignore the BS ones regarding abortion, naturally. They exist, again, to obfuscate, not clarify, and after answering the question, they aren’t needed.

Seems like there are a few people here who get it, which is awesome, but there are also some who don’t or simply have not carried the answer forward rationally. Dicentra, straw-men aside, I’m curious about your mindset. You seem to be pretty fixated on the most graphic, emotional incident you can think of, regardless of the infinitesimally small segment of abortions it would represent. Now I’m not going to say you are arguing for abortion in more circumstances, but I do note that your comments are straight out of the abortionist playbook for such arguments, to deflect towards emotionally-charged fringe cases. I also note you have expressly avoided the central issue, again from that playbook. Just observations, but they do make me curious. If it’s just coincidence that you are mouthing pro-abortion lines, by all means let me know where you stand on the real question and the massive majority of cases.

One thing that is a little more clear is that you seem to attach the rapist’s evil to the child. The way you repeatedly connect the rape and a resultant child in your arguments for abortion in those circumstances is, frankly, disturbing. It’s a quick and easy emotional argument favored by abortionists because arguing against it is so easily twisted into “punishing the victim”. Excuse me while I stomp on that dishonest tactic’s throat: Being raped has exactly no bearing on whether abortion is justified. The rapist is evil, but any child thus conceived is wholly innocent. I consider rape to be a crime worse than murder, and I believe there is no such thing as punishment too cruel for a rapist, no torture too brutal. On witnessing its results firsthand, I spent more than a little time contemplating what would be a suitable punishment for the bastard, and most people who have heard the results are understandable disturbed. I hate rapists, inhuman scum that they are, in the purest sense of the word, so understand me when I tell you that none of that carries over to a child conceived of rape. The child did nothing to deserve anyone’s enmity, and people who dishonestly try to use the natural, human responses of anger and disgust towards a rapist to push for killing that innocent child, those people piss me off.

Back to the question that answers everything, what about all the people who can’t decide on a solid answer, all the “I’m not sure”s and “maybe”s? It’s still simple. If you don’t know when life begins, which side do you want to err on? Me, I think erring on the side of not murdering an infant is preferable, but maybe I’m just weird like that. LBascom, I understand that you “like” that moment when the heart starts beating as a magical instant where something zaps a cluster of cells into a human being, but that’s just another arbitrary, feeling-based cop-out. (Side question: You don’t believe animal cruelty should be a crime? I may not have felt this was one of Prager’s best videos, but arguing animals have exactly no rights whatsoever seems like a rather extreme position to take.) What you can or can’t imagine is irrelevant, and I don’t think you honestly believe that that first heartbeat actually changes anything. You’ve just bought into the abortionist argument that you need a definite moment to pin “It’s alive!” on the new human being, so you’re grasping at straws, and a heartbeat “feels” like a pretty good one to you. You’re still thinking according to the abortionists’ rules, though. And no, “not picking a demarcation point” does not default to birth. That’s ridiculous. It would have to default to conception, the instant a group of cells (heck, a single cell) with DNA both human and unique from the mother came to be. That is the only point in time where what will become a walking, talking person goes from “does not exist” to “does exist”. Everything else is a gradual development, including for a long time after birth.

This ended up rather longer than I intended, so I’ll sum my thoughts up. “When does life begin?” is the be all, end all on the abortion debate. Answer that, and everything else works itself out. Can’t give a 100% certain answer? Then consider gun safety: One of the five rules of firearms safety (and screw anyone who claims there are only four) is “Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it”. Put another way, you do not pull that trigger unless you are 100% certain there is NOT a person between you and your bullet-stop. Not trying to kill someone isn’t enough. You have to try not to kill someone. The first is passive, but the second is active. If you’re not 100% certain that an abortion is NOT killing a human being and you argue for some arbitrary “it’s okay” point because it “feels” good, then you are telling a shooter to fire away and don’t worry if anyone is behind the target. Last, all the sob-stories and “what if”s are wonderful thought exercises, but it’s time to step up and deal with reality: Deciding overall policy on the basis of a tiny fraction of outliers is insane. A child’s father being a rapist is no excuse to murder the child, and the rare case where pregnancy threatens (honestly and imminently threatens, not “could cause complications later”) the mother’s life falls to the judgement of the mother and her medical advisers. I would hate to be involved in that decision, but it’s one of “which life do we try to save?”, not “is abortion justified?”. There is never a time when “Is abortion justified?” is the right question to ask.

Pardon the novelette, but talk of when it’s “justified” to end a human life strikes a nerve, especially when it’s couched in double-speak, appeals to emotion, and dishonesty….

Cortillaen does, indeed, ask the core question: ‘When does life begin?’

Scientifically, physically, I do not know exactly when Life begins, so I am one of those people who believe ‘erring on the side of not murdering an infant’.

However, I know, as a believer in God, that Life begins at Conception — of this I have no Doubt and all the Faith in the World.

The dishonesty Cortillaen speaks of here is not necessarily the product of malice [as it would be if a Leftist had stated it — they always act out of malice towards decent people], but, rather, I think, from the fact that even we conservatives and Classical Liberals have had our thinking mechanisms infected by Leftist Thinking. In this case, some of us have formed arguments based in such Thinking. The aim is true, but the arrow is poisoned throughout it’s whole length.

He addresses this is another comment:

Leftism-Unmasked-001fxAbortionists have done an exceptional job of building the field in their advantage. The idea that “some abortion MUST be legal” is so embedded in the fabric of the discussion now that even most pro-lifers feel like they have to choose a point out of the continuum of development and attach “life” to it. If you don’t, you’re a “fundy” and “anti-science”, right? Of course, once you do, you’ve already conceded that abortion is perfectly fine sometimes, and you’re on the defensive from there, usually without even knowing exactly why. In case you’re wondering, the implication that I reject the premise of abortion ever being fine is quite accurate. Abortion is never “fine”. In extremely rare cases, it may be the only way to save one of two lives, but it is still the ending of an innocent life. The absolute best it can ever be is a tragic sacrifice, and that only rarely.

Pro-lifers, here’s the secret: We aren’t the ones who have to play that game. We don’t have to prove when life begins. The pro-abortionists do. Refuse to accept “When is abortion acceptable?” as the question they get to answer, and make them answer the “When does life begin?” they throw at us. Murder hangs in the answer, and they are the ones committing it, not us. Turn the whole game on its head and demand that they prove what they want to destroy is NOT a human life. When they can’t, ask why they don’t care if they are murdering people or not.

Side-note: Anyone ever argued with a pro-abortionist who opposes the death penalty in all circumstances? It would be comical if it weren’t so sick. “We can’t be 100% sure, so we can’t kill inmates” right alongside “Eh, kinda-sorta is good enough for babies”.

This is the way to fight the Pro-Abortionists. We must refuse to go along with the Leftist Narrative, which is always filled with evasions and lies.

Cortillaen urges us to take a different approach to this issue:

…Maybe the parent’s life won’t go the way they want. Maybe the child won’t have a great life either. Does any of that stack up against the possibility of murdering an unborn life? Is that an acceptable risk? Here are the facts, no emotion, just pure reason: 1) It doesn’t matter how the child was conceived. Intentional, accidental, loving, violent, none of that is the fault of the child. 2) Unless someone can prove beyond any doubt that the child is just some inhuman thing, killing it is quite possibly murder. Now, proceeding from those, my argument is that any intentional attempt to destroy a “product of conception” (AKA a baby) is unconscionable in exactly the same way as taking a shot without confirming there is nobody downrange.

To be honest, I have to fight it in my own mind sometimes. I have the urge to make decisions based on an emotional response, too. “Well, what about things that just prevent implantation of the fertilized egg? That’s gotta be fine.” No, think: Why? What makes that situation different? Implantation is no different than a first heartbeat or first breath. It’s an arbitrary point along the continuum. The only change I can definitively identify as nothing becoming something is conception. After that, you have a new entity with unique human DNA. Whether that is a “person”, I can’t say. Thankfully, I don’t have to. I don’t want to kill it, so it’s not on me to prove that killing it will not be murder.

If you think I’m being too cold about all of this, here’s why: I don’t trust lives to emotional judgements. I wouldn’t want to live with myself if I let “feels good” talk me into condoning murder, so until I can be 100% certain what is or is not a human being, I’ll keep my finger off the trigger.

@Bob Beldevere: I just noticed I forgot to go back and finish my comments to you. I was saying that I usually leave God out of the argument because it is counterproductive to bring Him in. The world we have suffices for the issue, and the simpler one can make the discussion, the better. Most pro-abortionists are oh-so-eager to jump at any whiff of religion in the mix, so I just prefer to disappoint them. I’m Christian (non-denominational Protestant), mind you, but He has given us minds capable of reason so that, like children learning to face the world without their parents, we can learn to determine right and wrong without Him needing to pass down “Thou shalt not”s on every subject.

I usually don’t bring God into this discussion subject when I discuss it with non-conservatives for pretty much the same reasons he cites. I don’t like to give the opposition any excuse to deflect the conversation.

However, it is a damning commentary on the times we live in that our opinions are automatically delegitimized when we dare mention God.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,809 other followers