Kerwin Brown watch, continued

It’s been only two and a half weeks since we last checked in with Mr. Brown, but my favorite fifth-degree crackpot has kept up his analysis of America’s most pressing social issues in his inimitably hapless way, so it’s time for another look.

Perhaps the best place to start is with his thoughts on Britney Spheres [sic]. (Don’t ever accuse Kerwin of not being well-rounded, of not thinking globally, etc.) Brit-Brit’s nude, gravid form appears on the cover of the October issue of the Japanese version of Harper’s Bazaar Magazine (left). The Tokyo Metro Company originally objected to Harper’s ads gracing its subway system — posters that included the same photo featured on the not-so-racy cover. But TMC eventually relented, noting that the photo was “not all that salacious.”

Kerwin, dismayed by this display of “pornography,” manages to link the ads with Japan’s policy of allowing women to kill their own children inside their wombs (how they manage to crawl inside their mothers Kerwin doesn’t say) as well as point to the photo itself as evidence of America’s shoddy moral standards.


Next, Kerwin explains how the United Nation [sic] is attacking America’s liberty from within. This is being accomplished using “superfine men” (your guess is as good as mine; Denzel Washington? Brad Pitt?) and a cabal consisting of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union (natch), and the American Bar Association. As if that weren’t enough adversity for fair-minded conservative Christian patriots to take on, the Jewish War Veterans of the United States has partnered with the ACLU to ensure that the Mt. Soledad Cross case will be tried before judges who are nothing more than anti-Christian puppets of both organizations, meaning that the cross will most likely wind up being trucked into downtown San Diego and set aflame. Kerwin also notes that the U.S. Supreme Court includes one or more justices with ACLU and ABA ties, meaning that there’s no way the pro-cross faction will get a fair shake even if they appeal to the highest possible earthly authority.
Also, Kerwin, in the course of voicing his support for a higher minimum wage while contending that this should not be handled at the federal level, states: “Except for a few the Democratic party at the federal level supports illegal immigration.” His linked source mentions California’s impending $1.25 minimum-wage increase, but mentions nothing about the purported widespread support of illegal activity by the left. Perhaps Kerwin meant to say that a number of Democrats favor programs which allow immigrants who are presently in the U.S. illegally to pursue avenues leading to eventual citizenship, but why write that when you can just call Democrats crooks instead?
Finally, Kerwin points out another sound reason for keeping Hispanics (notice a pattern here?) from penetrating our borders: They breed like the devil, but can’t get or stay married. At least I think this is what he’s saying on the heels of this indecipherable helping of word gumbo:

“The case in Chicago involves a women who is an illegal immigrant and her child who was born in the United. Elvira Arellano was previously deported in the lay 1990 and then returned to the U.S. to give birth to the child that she claims it an American child by birth. The argument against is citizenship is that since his mother was not legally within the jurisdiction of the United States he can not be treated as if he was born within the jurisdiction as would reward lawbreaking.”

You can go blind trying to read this shit, but I’m here to perform a valuable service, and that service involves a certain amount of assumed risk. I’m sure everyone’s grateful for my repeated forays into whatever alternate universe Kerwin operates in.

4 thoughts on “Kerwin Brown watch, continued”

  1. Reading KB’s entries leaves me with a single question: “How does he manage to dress himself in the morning?” Then again, maybe he doesn’t.

  2. I see Kerwin still has a bee in his bonnet regarding the UN and NGOs.
    I recently, in a moment of insanity, attempted to point out a few incorrect facts in his post titled “The Power Of Unitarian Universalism And Its Thread (sic) To The Constitution.” He came up with the bizarre notion that UU was the “established religion” of the United Nations because he saw that they were an NGO. Also that the Unitarian Universalist Association was using their purchase of United Press International (UPI) to further the spread of their vaguely anti-Christian agenda.
    I pointed out that there were NGOs associated with every major world religion, that there was no established UN religion and that it was the conservative Unification Church and not the liberal Unitarian Universalist Church that bought UPI. Not surprisingly, the change in facts didn’t have any affect on his theory.
    I admit to being naive and thinking that when having his initial false facts corrected, like Emily Litella on SNL, Mr. Brown might cock his head to one side and say “never mind.” Instead he continues on with his reality-challenged views.
    I have a perverse fascination with how mangled his reasoning can get as well as the spelling of words. My favorites are his posts on “Parish Hilton.” He seems to be convinced that “Parish” is now a contemporary role model for abstinence education!

  3. Dlanod sez:

    He seems to be convinced that “Parish” is now a contemporary role model for abstinence education!

    HA! Note to the religion-addled populace: Parish is a vacuous slut obsessed with media exposure. One can expect high STD infection rates in the set of people considering her a “role model”. Eew.

  4. The funny part of the Bazaar cover is the Nothing to wear? question, which apparently has nothing to do with the photo.

Comments are closed.