Fox's Kim Guilfoyle Wants Putin-esque War Leader, Not Civil Liberties


Fox Screencap

Fox News personality Kimberly Guilfoyle on The Five expressed her desire for Russian President Vladimir Putin, or someone like him, to briefly hold power in the United States, and "get it done right." That is, dramatically escalate our war in Iraq until the Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIL or ISIS) is eliminated.

Let's not deprive Guilfoyle of context, though. In an Obama-bashing session Tuesday, co-host Greg Gutfeld lauded a proposal by London Mayor Boris Johnson to strip of their citizenship any Brits who go into terrorist zones, and questioned why our president isn't doing something similar.

Gutfeld: Can we actually do this without violating their so-called civil liberties?

Guilfoyle: Um, guess what? I don't care. In fact, I hope we violate a lot of their civil liberties. This is war, this is terror. There should be no mercy involved, because they have shown none. Can I just make a special request on the magic lamp? Can we get, like, Netanyahu, or, like, Putin in for 48 hours, you know, head of the United States. I don't know, I just want somebody to get in here and get it done right, so that Americans don't have to worry and wake up in the morning fearful of a group that's murderous and horrific like ISIS.

First, it seems that Guilfoyle has overstated the threat of ISIL. "The FBI and Homeland Security Department say there are no specific or credible terror threats to the U.S. homeland from the Islamic State militant group," reports the Associated Press.


Second, Guilfoyle isn't the first neoconservative to fall for the idea that central-power weilding strongmen like Putin are effective leaders. They aren't.

Perhaps the Fox personality isn't familiar with Russia's equivalent to America's War on Terror: the Chechen Wars. Putin wasn't around for the first one, which lasted less than two years. But when he took power in 2000, he dragged out the second bloody domestic conflict until mid-2009. Officially. The insurgency continues to this day, with over 600 reported terrorist crimes in the region just last year. The most recent suicide bombing on Russian soil happened this past December. I think he'd need more than 48 hours to take on ISIL. 

Guilfoyle's comments seem particularly off-color, since Russia's latest military aggression is an unjustified land grab in Ukraine. Did Putin "get in there and get it done right"? He quickly, successfully seized Crimea, but six months later it's proven to be a 10,000-square-mile money pit. Additionally, the war has brought the ruble to its lowest value in years, has turned the European Union against Russia with sanctions, and is putting the country on the brink of recession.

Big government begets bigger government. The Fox host admits civil liberties don't mean shit to her at the first tenuous sign of danger thousands of miles away. Lucky for her, violating rights is one of the Kremlin's favorite hobbies. Just ask a Russian libertarian: Dissident media is censored, activists and journalists face prison time, and exiling is in again. 

The Obama administration has many faults, but if neoconservatives want authoritarians, they can shuffle off to Russia and spare the rest of us.

NEXT: Diane Sawyer Passes ABC World News Torch

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. “*This* is why you should believe what I say!”

    2. The appropriate tag is “BOOBIES”

    3. And then he didn’t even try with alt-text.

      1. sorry

        1. “How do you like these apples?”

    4. Am I the only one who looks at the picture and reads her name as ‘Gargoyle’?

  1. The Five is easy pickin’s. Greg Gutfield blamed the existence of ISIL on libertarian support for Edward Snowden the other day.

    1. Yea it’s imbeciles all the way down.

      1. But the one thing Fox knows how to do is put the legs at the end of the table.

        1. Or around the table as found in the noon version. I wish the brains were as pretty as the legs tho.

          1. A mythical combo, only sung of, ne’er seen.


            1. I’m absurdly lucky. My wife is remarkably intelligent and after 20 years of marriage I still lust after her goddamn gorgeous legs and I’m no one-woman, clean-minded man by no means.

  2. If only there was some method of taking away the rights of citizenship from people who commit crimes…some sort of judicial procedure…

    1. Maybe an accomplished lawyer like Guilfoyle could come up with it.

      1. We’ll get the Senate to pass a declaration that they are hostis then we can proscribe them, strip their citizenship away and take all their stuff too!!!!

        Wait….wrong Senate?!

  3. She should read up on Roman history. Sometimes appointed dictators don’t want to step down.

    1. things are different nowadays. That could never happen.

    2. She should read up on Roman history. Sometimes appointed dictators don’t want to step down.

      It’s so unusual that when it does happen your name is etched into the annals of history and they’ll name a city in Ohio after you.

      1. Columbus??


  4. Put her ass on the battlefield. Equal rights for women!

    1. I could tell her where to put that ass.

      1. Another Reasonoid wants to be a little Putin hooker for Miss Warcunt.

  5. What else would you expect from a woman who was married to Gavin Newsome?

  6. She’s a warcunt and her mouth is a jet exhaust of injudicious babble.

    1. Doesn’t matter would still bang.

      1. Suggest you duct tape up that pie hole first.

        1. Why? I like to get kissed when I’m getting fucked. Plus it’s okay hate bangs can be hot.

          1. To each his own, it says so right there in the NAP. I wouldn’t touch that cunt with a 50 foot pole.

            1. Or a six inch one.

            2. Funny thing about my penis….

            3. Ha! As if you’d get a chance. She wouldn’t take a leak in a restroom in a 40 story office tower if she knew you were in the building, much less offer you any carnal favors.

                1. It belongs to the world as far as I’m concerned.

              1. She has a beaner for Putin clearly so carnal favors might be on the table for someone if their tank is big enough.

      2. If she would sign your consent-to-be-fucked contract I’m willing to bet you’d be one getting banged like a little Putin hooker.

      3. ugh, really? ew

  7. but six months later, it’s proven to be a 10,000 square miles money pit. Additionally, the war has brought the ruble to its lowest value in years


    What’s the best way to deal with Russia? Leave them alone and let them get bogged down in a long unwinnable quagmire. Maybe they’ll learn something this time, unlike us.

    1. I could vote for helping the bogging process along.

      Enter into a gas and oil purchase agreement with Ukraine, perhaps. Certainly sell them all the Russian-killing gear they can handle.

      1. Seemed to have worked for Reagan in Russia’s Afghan war. Well, it may have at least contributed to the fall of the USSR anyway, regardless of whether we ever gave weapons to the Afghans or not.

    2. Russians have clenched fists for heads. No room for a brain in there.

  8. so Americans don’t have to worry and wake up in the morning fearful of a group that’s murderous and horrific like ISIS

    Unless we start importing the assholes by the tens of thousands like the UK did, I’m not particularly worried. In fact, further involvement in the area almost demands bringing more of them over here in the long term. One of the many costs of empire.

    1. Speaking of open borders, Google “Rotherham” and see the wages of open borders and PC non-assimilation.

      Oh, hell, here’s a taste.

      The Times publishes an investigation revealing that a confidential 2010 police report had warned thousands of child sexual exploitation crimes were being committed in South Yorkshire each year by networks of Asian men.

      The newspaper also reports that police and child protection agencies in the town of Rotherham had extensive knowledge of such crimes for decades, yet offences went unprosecuted. South Yorkshire Police denies withholding information and says the suggestion it was reluctant to tackle child sexual abuse is wrong.

      Translator’s note: “Asian” is PC-speak for “Paki Muslim”. “Child exploitation crimes by networks of Asian men” is code for “children were systematically gang-raped by Paki Muslims.”

      1. Yeah I saw that yesterday. Sickening.

      2. funny, but the word “Asian” does not conjure thoughts of Pakis or Muslims, even though it Pakistan is part of Asia.

        Sounds like we’re in need of one moar of the labelz.

        1. It does in Britain.

        2. the word “Asian” does not conjure thoughts of Pakis or Muslims

          What’s the point of a euphemism if it doesn’t obfuscate?

          1. What’s the point of a euphemism if it doesn’t obfuscate?

            New Iron Law?

          2. Is it really a euphemism, though?

            South Asian is the conventional meaning of Asian in Britain. That doesn’t really make any more or any less sense than America’s use of Asian for East Asian.

    2. First of all, anyone more worried about ISIS than the US government is a damn naive fool.

      That being said, all that ISIS has to do is learn Spanish and walk across the border, no importing required.

      1. “That being said, all that ISIS has to do is learn Spanish and walk across the border, no importing required.”


  9. Why do the neocons piss down their legs at every threat from 4,000 miles away?

    1. Because they need more scary boogeymen and monsters under people’s beds to be able to sustain their non-ending wars and keep the sheeples in line.

    2. I dunno. Ask John or Cyto.

    3. 1) neocons is not a catch-all for “warmonger”, but rather has a very-specific connotation about belief that the Military can be used to actively transform regions around the world to be more oriented favorably to US interests. – i.e. that military force is superior to diplomacy

      a person could believe we should bomb anyone who looks at us funny, and not be a ‘neocon’ because they don’t actually think military action serves any purpose in foreign relations other than ‘destroying opponents’ military capability’.

      I’m just saying. Its like calling every opponent of a current regime an “anarchist” even if they want to replace it with something More Statist – its ignoring the underlying political assumptions and just labeling ‘people who are amenable to use of force’ all the same. That’s gay.

      2) People who think that the US should maintain an active posture in global security do not necessarily do so out of ‘fear’.

      I don’t think there’s a plausible risk to US security outside of Russian Nukes. and i don’t even think they’d be used in anything short of Alien Invasion.

      However some people think US power can/should be used as a ‘threat’ to attempt to ensure that the scale of international conflict remains minimized. they’re ‘activists’ who want to maintain a posture of involvement. They are popular among both Democrats and Republicans. I’m not one of them myself, although even admitting to understanding these other POVs is tantamount to Non-Interventionist heresy, I am aware.

    4. “Why do the neocons piss down their legs at every threat from 4,000 miles away?”

      It’s called the Persian Gulf and it is a lot closer than 4,000 miles.

      1. What?! Google says:

        6,616 mi
        Distance from New York, NY to Persian Gulf

        1. i think “because tits” actually makes more sense at this point.

  10. Because “tits”, that’s why

  11. We’ve been steadily dropping bombs in the mideast since what, 1992? And look at the state of the middle east today. How can someone who proposes that the solution is to DROP MORE BOMBS IN THE MIDDLE EAST even be invited onto a TV show to voice an opinion, much less have his opinion taken seriously in the public debate? ARRRRGHH!!!!

    1. A LOT of mindless drivel can fly out a piehole unchecked if half the male population wants to fuck you as they eat their mashed potatoes and meatloaf.

      1. I shouldn’t even make this comment, but I will. She is “pretty” in a Miss America kind of way, kind of like a Stepford Wife. But that has nothing to do with sexy. Which she is not.

  12. Alt text – “He’s gotta be this big around to sleep with me…”

  13. Even Kimberly Guilfoyle’s a woman, she has more cojones than all you reason types put together. War against ISIS or Islam (Islam was America’s enemy since the dawn of the Republic)cannot be won by smoking a joint and nuking the six million Jews of Israel and, then, DENYING that the six million Jews died there.

    Incidentally, Winston Churchill praised Adolf Hitler in 1938; Kimberly praised Vladimir Putin recently; however, Putin is not a Hitler. Maybe that is why your daddy Warbucks, don’t like him.

    1. This is so exceptionally asinine that I think it at least deserves some points for style

      +5 HTS-points

    2. So it can be won by removing a dictator and destabilizing the region? Didn’t take long for the radicals to take over where they couldn’t get a foot hold for a long time. We’ve been fighting this war for 13 years, how is that working out for us? Al queda is popping up again in afganistan, isis has chunks of iraq, recruitment is gaining for radical islam….

  14. The sad part is people forget we fought a world war on two fronts and won because we were committed to wining. You do not need to violate a person’s rights to fight a war. What is needed is for the government to be led by people committed to winning and not pandering to special interests groups just to win the next election. You need a President who blames the people responsible, not the US. Unlike any other country, the US has not taken land in any war fought since the end of the 1800s. Beginning in WWI, Americans and fought and died for freedom, ours and others. We have maintained bases with the permission of the governments in other countries and left when told to leave like we did in the Philippines. You win a war by destroying the enemies ability to make war, not by “spreading democracy”, If the US sent EVERYTHING in our arsenal against ISIS and wiped them from the face of the earth and made it clear, we will do the same to any other group or country who chooses to engage in or support terrorism, they would stop. Libya is a good example. When President Reagan bombed Libya in 1986, Qaddafi never again engaged in terrorism. President Reagan made it crystal clear, attack citizens of the US and we will come after you, not your army, YOU…..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.