Fyodor explains that fake news is nothing new.

Actually, it is the norm and always has been.

First, find below my thoughts on "objective journalism".

Second, some links to articles about the history of American journalism that no one alive today knows anything about because it happened before they were born. 

Last, I offer the most horrific fake news ever, the story of Walter Duranty's cover-up of Stalin's Ukrainian genocide, which won the bastard the Pulitzer Prize.

The conceit of modern journalists and scholars is that in the olden days newspeople were partisan and biased, skewing their writing to advance their political agenda or that of their employers. Then, the 20th century arrived, and magically, so did "objective journalism" which was the rule until Rash Dimbulb and Fox News appeared and started spewing right-wing "propaganda" while calling it news. And that made the lumpenproletariat vote for Orange Clump.

What miracle occurred in the early 20th century to change partisan yellow journalism into a crusading force for truth, justice, light, and niceness?

Nothing.

Not a single, solitary thing.

There was no change whatsoever. "Objective journalism" was invented to protect journalists from anyone who dared question their fairness and objectivity. Anyone who did so was shouted down as a crank or an un-American fascist. "How dare you question the integrity if the Press, sir? We are the defenders of freedom. We are the First Amendment incarnate!"

Today, the progeny and heirs of this 20th century fairy tale fear they have lost control of the "narrative" and with it, the lumpenproletariat. (Defined as anyone too stupid and/or evil to agree with them.) These citizens don't like where the fairy tale peddlers are leading them and therefore choose to listen to sources they like. Same as it ever was. In other words, there is now an "anti-Establishment press" press.

Make no mistake, kiddies, the media is an Establishment in and of itself. It has a philosophy, an ideology, and interests it promotes and defends at all costs. These can be summed up in one word - power. Grasping it, consolidating it, getting more of it, and destroying any person or institution that threatens it's power are the priorities of any Establishment or elite.

If you believe the fairy tale (or lie, or, dare I type it, fake news) of the creation of "objective journalism" out of the morass that was 18th and 19th century partisan journalism, you are most likely someone who supports the Establishment media and it's political and social agenda. Of course, such a person would also vehemently deny their biases and constantly repeat the fairy tale verbatim.

I am posting this in the (probably) vain hope that some folks may ask themselves if it is possible they too suffer from "confirmation bias".

The Fall and Rise of Partisan Journalism – Center for Journalism Ethics

History of American newspapers - Wikipedia

Partisan politics? Take a look at the 19th century - The Boston Globe

Media bias is nothing new. - The Washington Post

A Brief History of Media Bias | RealClearPolitics

The roots of media bias go back to the nineteenth century, and complaints about bias

in part reflect a questionable idea about the media's role and purpose: that newspapers

and other dispensers of public information exist to transmit objective, factual information

gleaned and communicated by credentialed ...

Searches related to partisan journalism in 18th century

partisan press era

what is partisan journalism

partisan press examples

history of journalism in america

history of american newspapers

penny press definition

yellow journalism

newspapers in the 1800s

Pulitzer-Winning Lies | The Weekly Standard

AT LONG LAST a Pulitzer Prize committee is looking into the possibility that the Pulitzer

awarded to Walter Duranty, the New York Times Moscow correspondent whose dispatches

covered up Stalin's infamies, might be revoked.

In order to assist in their researches, I am downloading here some of the lies contained in those dispatches, lies which the New York Times has never repudiated with the same splash as it accorded Jayson Blair's comparatively trivial lies:

"There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."
--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1

"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."
--New York Times, August 23, 1933

"Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please.

Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth

and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program,

believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding."
--New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6

"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
--New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18

"There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread

mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."
--New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13

I would like to add another Duranty quote, not in his dispatches, which is reported

in a memoir by Zara Witkin, a Los Angeles architect, who lived in the Soviet Union

during the 1930s. ("An American Engineer in Stalin's Russia: The Memoirs of Zara Witkin,

1932-1934," University of California Press ). The memoirist describes an evening

during which the Moscow correspondents were discussing how to get out the story about

the Stalin-made Russian famine. To get around the censorship, the UP's Eugene Lyons was

telephoning the dire news of the famine to his New York office but the was ordered to stop

because it was antagonizing the Kremlin. Ralph Barnes, the New York Herald Tribune reporter,

turned to Duranty and asked him what he was going to write. Duranty replied:
Nothing. What are a few million dead Russians in a situation like this? Quite unimportant.

This is just an incident in the sweeping historical changes here. I think the entire matter is exaggerated.
And this was at a time when peasants in Ukraine were dying of starvation at the rate of 25,000 a day.

In his masterwork about Stalin's imposed famine on Ukraine, "Harvest of Sorrow," Robert Conquest

has written:
As one of the best known correspondents in the world for one of the best known newspapers in

the world, Mr. Duranty's denial that there was a famine was accepted as gospel. Thus Mr. Duranty

gulled not only the readers of the New York Times but because of the newspaper's prestige,

he influenced the thinking of countless thousands of other readers about the character of Josef Stalin

and the Soviet regime. And he certainly influenced the newly-elected President Roosevelt to

recognize the Soviet Union.

What is so awful about Duranty is that Times top brass suspected that Duranty was writing Stalinist

propaganda, but did nothing. In her exposé "Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty, the New York

Times's man in Moscow," S.J. Taylor makes it clear that Carr Van Anda, the managing editor,

Frederick T. Birchall, an assistant managing editor, and Edwin L. James, the later managing editor,

were troubled with Duranty's Moscow reporting but did nothing about it. Birchall recommended

that Duranty be replaced but, says Taylor, "the recommendation fell by the wayside."

When Duranty of his own volition decided to become a special correspondent on a retainer basis

for the New York Times, the newspaper published an editorial reassuring its readers that his reputation

as "the most outstanding correspondent of an American newspaper during all the years of his faithful

and brilliant work at Moscow will remain unimpaired in the slightest degree by the change now made."

This about a man whom Malcolm Muggeridge, the Manchester Guardian correspondent and Duranty's

contemporary, described as "the greatest liar of any journalist I have met in fifty years of journalism."

Duranty was one of a gaggle of Stalin's intellectual admirers. Muggeridge, whose centennial we

celebrate this summer, wrote about them in these lapidary words:

Wise old [Bernard]Shaw, high-minded old [Henri]Barbusse, the venerable [Sidney and Beatrice] Webbs,

[Andre] Gide the pure in heart and [Pablo] Picasso the impure, down to poor little teachers, crazed clergymen

and millionaires, driveling dons and very special correspondents like Duranty, all resolved, come what might,

to believe anything, however preposterous, to overlook nothing, however villainous, to approve anything,

however obscurantist and brutally authoritarian, in order to be able to preserve intact the confident

expectation that one of the most thorough-going, ruthless and bloody tyrannies ever to exist on earth could

be relied on to champion human freedom, the brotherhood of man, and all the other good liberal causes to

which they had dedicated their lives. ("Chronicles of Wasted Time," pages 275- 276.)

(Emphasis mine. - F.G.)

Let's all give a great encouraging cheer to the Pulitzer committee for undertaking a task 70 years late.

And perhaps the Times will now a look back at the Herbert L. Matthews coverage of Cuba and

the man he so admired, Fidel Castro.

Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, is a columnist for the Washington Times.

More on Duranty's lies in the name of commie douchebaggery....

New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize

Walter Duranty - Spartacus Educational

How Stalin Hid Ukraine's Famine From the World - The Atlantic

Times Should Lose Pulitzer From 30's, Consultant Says - The Old Gray Whore...

Pulitzer Board Won't Void '32 Award to Times Writer - The Old Gray Whore ...

Ukrainian Genocide: NY Times Still Covering Up - The New American

Ukrainians want pro-Stalin writer stripped of Pulitzer | The Guardian ...

Russians Hungry Not Starving (New York Times March 31 1933) by ...

The denigration of Gareth Jones by Walter Duranty in The New York Times, Friday March 31st 1933.

RUSSIANS HUNGRY, BUT NOT STARVING. Deaths From Diseases Due to Malnutrition High,

Yet the Soviet is Entrenched. LARGER CITIES HAVE FOOD. Ukraine, North Caucasus and

Lower Volga Regions Suffer From ...

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

After 2,000 years, you'd think the Catholic Church would learn that the world HATES her.

The One True Church cannot win by playing by the world's rules.

She can never do enough to satisfy that which opposes her mission of love.

Her enemies do not care about victims of abuse, or the poor, or the oppressed. They only care about destroying Her.



Pope shocks Chile by accusing sex abuse victims of slander - Washington's other other newspaper ...

All that being said, Pope Francis seems ill-equipped for the task of defending the Faith. Pray that God the Holy Ghost will strengthen him so he may successfully wage the never-ending war.


Pope Francis accused victims of Chile’s most notorious pedophile of slander Thursday, an astonishing end to a visit meant to help heal the wounds of a sex abuse scandal that has cost the Catholic Church its credibility in the country.

Francis said that until he sees proof that Bishop Juan Barros was complicit in covering up the sex crimes of the Rev. Fernando Karadima, such accusations against Barros are “all calumny.”

The pope’s remarks drew shock from Chileans and immediate rebuke from victims and their advocates. They noted the accusers were deemed credible enough by the Vatican that it sentenced Karadima to a lifetime of “penance and prayer” for his crimes in 2011. A Chilean judge also found the victims to be credible, saying that while she had to drop criminal charges against Karadima because too much time had passed, proof of his crimes wasn’t lacking.

“As if I could have taken a selfie or a photo while Karadima abused me and others and Juan Barros stood by watching it all,” tweeted Barros’ most vocal accuser, Juan Carlos Cruz. “These people are truly crazy, and the pontiff talks about atonement to the victims. Nothing has changed, and his plea for forgiveness is empty.”

The Karadima scandal dominated Francis’ visit to Chile and the overall issue of sex abuse and church cover-up was likely to factor into his three-day trip to Peru that began late Thursday.

Karadima’s victims reported to church authorities as early as 2002 that he would kiss and fondle them in the swank Santiago parish he ran, but officials refused to believe them. Only when the victims went public with their accusations in 2010 did the Vatican launch an investigation that led to Karadima being removed from ministry.

The emeritus archbishop of Santiago subsequently apologized for having refused to believe the victims from the start.

Francis reopened the wounds of the scandal in 2015 when he named Barros, a protege of Karadima, as bishop of the southern diocese of Osorno. Karadima’s victims say Barros knew of the abuse, having seen it, but did nothing. Barros has denied the allegations.

His appointment outraged Chileans, badly divided the Osorno diocese and further undermined the church’s already shaky credibility in the country.

Francis had sought to heal the wounds by meeting this week with abuse victims and begging forgiveness for the crimes of church pastors. But on Thursday, he struck a defiant tone when asked by a Chilean journalist about Barros.

“The day they bring me proof against Bishop Barros, I’ll speak,” Francis said. “There is not one shred of proof against him. It’s all calumny. Is that clear?”

Francis had defended the appointment before, calling the Osorno controversy “stupid” and the result of a campaign mounted by leftists. But The Associated Press reported last week that the Vatican was so worried about the fallout from the Karadima affair that it was prepared in 2014 to ask Barros and two other Karadima-trained bishops to resign and go on a yearlong sabbatical.

According to a Jan. 31, 2015, letter obtained by AP from Francis to the executive committee of the Chilean bishops’ conference, the plan fell apart and Barros was sent to Osorno.

Juan Carlos Claret, spokesman for a group of Osorno lay Catholics who have mounted a three-year campaign against Barros, questioned why Francis was now accusing the victims of slandering Barros when the Vatican was so convinced of their claims that it planned to remove him in 2014.

“Isn’t the pastoral problem that we’re living (in Osorno) enough to get rid of him?” Claret asked.

The reference was to the fact that — guilty or not — Barros has been unable to do his job because so many Osorno Catholics and priests don’t recognize him as their bishop. They staged an unprecedented protest during his 2015 installation ceremony and have protested his presence ever since.

Anne Barrett Doyle, of the online database BishopAccountability.org, said it was “sad and wrong” for the pope to discredit the victims since “the burden of proof here rests with the church, not the victims — and especially not with victims whose veracity has already been affirmed.”

“He has just turned back the clock to the darkest days of this crisis,” she said in a statement. “Who knows how many victims now will decide to stay hidden, for fear they will not be believed?”

Indeed, Catholic officials for years accused victims of slandering and attacking the church with their claims. But up until Francis’ words Thursday, many in the church and Vatican had come to reluctantly acknowledge that victims usually told the truth and that the church for decades had wrongly sought to protect its own.

German Silva, a political scientist at Santiago’s Universidad Mayor, said the pope’s comments were a “tremendous error” that will reverberate in Chile and beyond.

Patricio Navia, political science professor at Diego Portales University in Santiago, said Francis had gone much further than Chilean bishops in acknowledging the sexual abuse scandal, which many Chileans appreciated.

“Then right before leaving, Francis turns around and says: ‘By the way, I don’t think Barros is guilty. Show me some proof,’” Navia said, adding that the comment will probably erase any good will the pope had won over the issue.

Navia said the Karadima scandal had radically changed how Chileans view the church.

People are sinners. We are always looking for excuses to justify our sins.

“In the typical Chilean family, parents (now) think twice before sending their kids to Catholic school because you never know what is going to happen,” Navia said.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Either the fascist left is too stupid to remember Charlottesville, (possible) or they wouldn't mind another one for propaganda purposes.(more likely)

Golly, kiddies, you'd think with AmeriKKKa infested with nazis and rampaging penises, that womyn of the commie persuasion would welcome an attempt by the police to protect other leftist females who want to exercise their First Amendment rights.

You'd be wrong.



From Philthy.com:

Calls grow for protest of Philly Women's March over security measures

A social media campaign calling for a boycott of Saturday’s Women’s March on Philadelphia is quickly spreading. Its rationale? The march organizers’ perceived collaboration with police.

I know this demonstration should be called BabyDeath 2018, but free speech is important so real men can know which females to avoid like the clap.

“The Women’s March of Philadelphia thinks it’s OK to collaborate with the police department to set up security checkpoints and conduct random searches on march attendees, ostensibly stopping and frisking them, putting those already targeted by law enforcement at an even greater risk,” reads a message that started spreading on Facebook Wednesday. “Forget that. Don’t attend the Women’s March.”

People sharing the message on social media are asking friends to share it further. While it’s unclear who started the campaign, its message gained steam after it was shared by activists with large social media followings, including George Ciccariello-Maher, an outspoken ex-Drexel University professor known for his controversial tweets, who has more than 6,000 people following him on Facebook.

Johanna James, a black woman and an organizer with a local group that advocates for people of color, transgender women and other marginalized groups, attended last year’s Women’s March on Philadelphia, but won’t be going Saturday because of the police presence, which she said invites “trauma on our already traumatized people.”






Memo to someone's daughter holding the big white (Racist.) sign in the middle of the photo:

Sweetie, men can't get pregnant. That is why they invented contraception and abortion, so they can fuck women with impunity, and then fuck them over with impunity. (I'm not afraid of losing my Man Card for divulging that. Sadly, women are almost as stupid and evil as men nowadays and stubbornly refuse to get it.)


“One of the biggest antagonizers of the black community, specifically, is the police,” said James, a co-organizer with the Womanist Working Collective. “Inviting them into that space ultimately means you’re not taking our feelings concerning them into any sort of consideration.”

Other organizations have said they’re no longer supporting the event, including the Philadelphia-based Women’s Medical Fund, a nonprofit that aims to expand abortion access for low-income people. Executive director Elicia Gonzales said staff members decided Friday they would not be part of the demonstration after hearing from people in communities they serve who were “saying that they didn’t feel welcomed or reflected by the march.”

“We didn’t take this decision lightly and really thought about all the ramifications of both walking and not walking,” she said, “but we stand by our decision.”

The boycott campaign began after Women’s March organizers indicated on the event’s Facebook page that attendees will be subject to search by police.

“Due to the projected size and scope of the 2018 Women’s March on Philadelphia on January 20th, 2018, the City will be implementing some additional security measures in order to ensure the safety of all in attendance,” according to the Facebook page. The organizers listed prohibited items,
including weapons, fireworks, drones and “illegal or illicit substances of any kind.”

Organizers are expecting more than 50,000 people to march on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway on the one-year anniversary of President Trump’s inauguration.

In response to questions about the boycott campaign, Philly Women Rally, the committee behind the Women’s March, released a statement Thursday morning directing all inquiries regarding safety and security to the city. The statement did not directly address the boycott campaign.

“The City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Police Department are committed to facilitating and protecting the First Amendment rights of all citizens, regardless of race, cultural background, age, gender identity and sexual orientation,” city spokeswoman Ajeenah Amir said in a statement. “For the safety of all in attendance, event-goers can expect to encounter security protocols similar to those in place at other large-scale outdoor events, concerts, festivals, etc. In no way will the Philadelphia Police Department, or any other city agency, limit the ability of attendees to lawfully and peacefully participate in this event.”

Deputy Police Commissioner Dennis Wilson said rumors that police would be “stopping and frisking” attendees were not accurate, adding: “We’re not infringing on anyone’s First Amendment rights in any way.”

The protocols are not dissimilar to those in place during the NFL draft in April. When the city played host to the draft, police set up a secure perimeter around the event and established multiple security checkpoints.

City officials say they have been working with Philly Women Rally to establish safety protocols. The event is being evaluated based on its location, projected attendance, timing, traffic hazards and potential threats of violence or terrorism.

Gwen Snyder, a longtime Philadelphia activist and organizer who is white, said she attended last year’s Women’s March on Philadelphia, but won’t be attending Saturday, citing “distrust in some communities of color around police presence in general.” She said that of dozens of protests she’s organized over the last two decades — including a 6,000-person “Tax March” last April — she’s never worked with police to set up security checkpoints.

“I think it sets a dangerous precedent,” Snyder, 32, said. “Today it might be they’re searching folks for knives and spray paint. But if they’re doing that, it’s just as likely it becomes the norm for protesters to be searched.”


TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Tonya Harding, feminist icon...Or, Hoperah 2020!

Before you praise the Hollyweird perverts too loudly for their blackout at the Golden Bolus awards, ask yourself why they gave Tonya Harding a standing ovation.

These elitist hypocritical shits are ALWAYS performing. They cannot be real decent people because inside of them there is nothing but self-loathing which can only be temporarily silenced by the sound of applause. If they didn't spread so much evil and hate, I would pity them.

BTW, kiddies,  if you believe that any of these heroes and heroines of yours didn't know Harvey Weinstein was raping his way through their ranks for decades, you just might be a dumbass.

And now, the star of EVERY show, Okra Whingefree!


Aha! Democrats and their Oprah moment - John Kass - Chicago Tribune

President Oprah Winfrey.

Aha.

In ancient times, that’s what you may have said — if you were still alive — after being struck in the forehead by one of Zeus’ thunderbolts.

But now it’s what the Democratic Party is saying after they’ve had their Oprah “aha” moment.

Because after her presidential-ish speech at the Golden Globe Awards the other night — and please don’t play the fool and pretend it wasn’t a presidential-ish speech because it was — everything becomes clear.

And there is nothing, really, that the Democratic Party can do about it.

All Oprah needs to do is reach out her hand for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, as if it were a warm piece of White House pie.

It’s on her plate. It’s done.

Because if she is denied her pie — as reportedly happened during an awkward visit to the Obama White House — we may witness a disaster.

Oprah Winfrey is an expert when it comes to celebrity and marketing. And she’s an artistic genius when it comes to public feelings and public emoting.

So when she delivered that speech at the Golden Globes, so folksy, so stirring that Hollywood actors cried real tears and political journalists felt the tingles run down their legs once again, you knew it was her moment.

“For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dare speak the truth to the power of those men,” Winfrey said to the crowd on national TV. “But their time is up. Their time is up.”

I’m not making light of her speech. It was a serious talk in prime time to a friendly audience, about racism and sexism and the sins of the past and her hope for the future. It was remarkable.

It was a speech of a smart woman testing the presidential waters.

But what’s even more remarkable than the speech is what bloomed afterward. The Democratic Media Complex is in love again.

They’ve been out in the cold so long, desperate to belong, and now they have their champion. It’s a beautiful thing, really.

WARNING! HERE COMES KASS SWALLOWING THE PARTY LINE AND THEN VOMITING IT ONTO YOUR SCREEN.

President Donald Trump became president by bashing down the establishment gates. But the Democratic Media Complex, which at its core is establishmentarian, loathed him for it.

Trump threatened their seats at the banquet, their position as guardians of empire, but Oprah?

Pity. The rest of this makes sense. I guess he doesn't want to get audited by the IRS.

Oprah is their moveable feast. And they will open the gates wide for her.

NBC, obsequious as ever, did so by endorsing an Oprah presidential run on its verified Twitter account. “Nothing but respect for OUR future president,” it said.

Then NBC realized that an endorsement, even before Oprah asked for it, might suggest media bias. So NBC deleted the tweet, though obviously the love still throbs.

Actress Meryl Streep is the grande dame of Hollywood now. She loves Oprah.

Yes, Streep also once idolized sex harasser/assaulter and producer Harvey Weinstein, or at least she thought so highly of him that she once publicly declared he was “God.”

But Streep loves Oprah now.

“I want her to run for president,” Streep said.

Streep was clearly overwhelmed, as were many in the audience, wearing black, condemning men like Weinstein. And those photos of Oprah hugging Weinstein that circulated immediately afterward?

Or the fact that Hollywood is full of hypocrites who knew about Weinstein for years and said nothing and did nothing even while lecturing America about its lack of moral courage?

Don’t be such a hater. All such hate will be washed away in the waters of Oprah. She will heal them, she will cleanse them, and they will love for it.

Oprah is intrigued about the possibility of running for president, says her longtime friend Gayle King. She’d do it if the people want her to, said longtime partner Stedman Graham.

Even President Donald Trump once thought she’d make a great running mate, though now he says he can beat her. Don’t be so sure.

I’m sure it drives other Democrats crazy — the way Trump drove the establishment Republicans crazy — but that’s just the way the celebrity cookie crumbles.

The Democratic Party was once about ideas, about sound economic policy (even tax cuts) and anti-communism and the working man.
But conservative Democrats have been purged. The party now offers a leftist diet of open borders, social justice warriors and virulent anti-Trumpism.

It relies less on policy than on feelings and emotion. And all of it is set upon the party foundation of racial and gender identity politics.
Oprah is African-American. She’s a woman. She was raised a poor girl in Milwaukee and she made her own way and spent decades telling Americans about their feelings and emotions and made billions of dollars.

So who would take her down? Who would dare mock her? Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren and even creepy touchy-feely former Vice President Joe Biden wouldn’t dare.

And Kirsten Gillibrand, for whom Al Franken was subjected to ritual sacrifice on the altar of her presidential ambitions?
No way, Kirsten. Too bad, Al.

Andrew Cuomo? He can cry.

So to help soothe their sad feelings, I’ve come up with a new cocktail in honor of Oprah’s ascendancy.

You can call it Cuomo Tears on the Rocks or Kirsten’s Sobs.
Sanders Shrieks, Warren’s War Cry on Ice or Biden’s Fingertips on Your Wife’s Neck.

Or a Chilly Gillibrand with a Franken Swizzle.

It is a drink of equal parts bitters and broken dreams, shaken, not stirred.

They’ll smile and gulp it down and announce it’s the tastiest thing they’ve ever tried, if Oprah serves it to them. And they’ll say:

“Please, Oprah, may I have another?”

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Yet more campaign lies you SUCKERS swallowed like $2 whores.

Legalizing foreign invaders? CHECK!

Putting Repansycan Party politics above the national interest? CHECK!

Feeding shit to the sheep and calling it caviar? CHECK!

Trump Calls For Immigration Overhaul, Including DACA : NPR

Trump also said that he was open to a larger measure overhauling immigration laws, but that it made the most sense to first settle the Obama-era Deferred Action On Childhood Arrivals, also known as DACA, issue. Authority allowing for the so-called DREAMers covered by the measure to remain in the country expires ...

Trump Administration Drops Florida From Offshore Drilling Plan - The Old Gray Whore ...

Suckers!

Yeah, It's a Nationalist, all right. In a nation of One.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Fyodor has seen the future, and it is Venezuela.

The commie shits (today's theme, it seems) that rule the poor people of Venezuela might allow our brotherly love to infiltrate their socialist paradise as long as the hostages (Oops! I mean "citizens", of course.) agree to pretend their left-fascist dictatorship is okey-dokey with them. 

And you thought Faust's bargain was a rough one!


Maduro may allow food aid into Venezuela if ... - Miami Herald

Facing an explosive crisis, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is considering allowing international food donations to enter his country, but wants the opposition to recognize the legitimacy of the controversial National Constituent Assembly (NCA).

Maduro also wants to control the distribution of the food donations — so far denied entry by the government despite growing food shortages and looting — according to sources close to the situation.
The proposal has been under consideration during negotiations between the government and opposition this week in the Dominican Republic, said three sources. Two of the sources are diplomats who have been briefed on the conversations, and the third is an opposition official.

The sources agreed that the arrival of humanitarian aid and the legitimacy of the NCA are two of the key issues under negotiation behind closed doors. Also on the agenda are the U.S. sanctions on the Maduro government and early presidential elections.

But the legitimacy of the Constituent Assembly would be difficult for the opposition to accept. The umbrella Democratic Unity Roundtable — known as MUD — has repeatedly called it a fraud organized by Maduro to seize total and unchallenged control of the nation.

“Accepting the Constituent Assembly means surrendering the country. It is legitimizing the regime’s staying in power and driving the final nail into the casket of freedom in Venezuela,” said Diego Arias, a former Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations who lives in New York.

Opposition leader Maria Corina Machado agreed. “Any decision taken in the Dominican Republic to accept [the NCA] or even ignore it would be absolutely unacceptable to us,” she said.

The Constituent Assembly is a fraudulent entity that could reverse any government decisions, including any agreement reached in the Dominican Republic, Machado added, by phone from Venezuela.

That’s why any agreement reached by the negotiators must start with the dismantling of the NCA, so that the final terms can be accepted by the Venezuelan people, Machado said.
The Maduro government disagrees, according to the sources.

The government would be willing to allow the entry of humanitarian aid from the World Food Program, a branch of the United Nations, in exchange for the opposition’s promise to stop challenging the NCA’s legitimacy, the sources said.

The government also would be willing to allow the opposition to appoint two members to the five-member National Electoral Council, according to the sources. The opposition now holds only one seat on the council.

Hoping to sweeten the deal, the government also has offered to release some political prisoners and agree to legally register some political parties previously abolished.

Opening the way for the food assistance might be initially portrayed as a victory for the opposition, whose popularity has been pummeled by its agreement to negotiate with the unpopular government.
But the arrival of the humanitarian aid would also resolve a serious problem for the government, which has been roundly criticized for economic policies that sparked the unprecedented food shortages.

Did you know Venezuela has more oil than Saudi Arabia?

“Right now, Maduro is desperate because of the food situation. The country is burning up with looting, and he understands that the situation could spin out of control,” said Esteban Gerbasi, a Miami political consultant.

But allowing the government to control the distribution of the food would clearly be very risky for the Venezuelans’ efforts to return to a democratic system of government.
“If they get control of the food and recognition of the NCA, they would go on to control everything. That would be very grave. With those two things, Maduro will be in a position to control the Venezuelan people,” said Gerbasi.

Government and opposition delegates met again Thursday in the Dominican Republic for a third round of negotiations amid a crisis marked by looting of supermarkets and thefts from delivery trucks.

Helping with the talks are former Spanish President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and the foreign ministers of Chile and Mexico, invited by the opposition, and Bolivia, Nicaragua and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, invited by the Maduro government.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article194269574.html#storylink=cpy

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article194269574.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article194269574.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article194269574.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article194269574.html#storylink=cpy

Germaine, we hardly knew ye.

Her dreams of world domination in tatters, her fake Catholicism exposed, the object of her lust indifferent to all but porn stars*, and her sewed-on armadillo penis non-functional, @GermaineGreerInDrag returns to her well-deserved obscurity and ever-fruitless masturbation.







*

Trump Lawyer Arranged $130000 Payment for Adult-Film Star's Silence

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

The Norwegians must be so proud.

President Shit-For-Brains opens his shit-hole and shits out another steaming pile of stable genius.


From The West Australian:

Donald Trump complains about immigrants from 's***hole countries ...

President Donald Trump asked participants in an Oval Office meeting Thursday why the United States should accept immigrants from “s***hole countries”in Africa, Central America and the Caribbean, according to two people briefed on the meeting.

“What do we want Haitians here for?”the president asked, according to the people briefed. “Why do we want all these people from Africa here? Why do we want all these people from s***hole countries”.

The president added: “We should have people from places like Norway”.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Yet another promise the Orange Suck-Hole won't keep.

President Empty Threat (and empty pants) said he would cut off aid to every country that voted to condemn it's phantom move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem at the UN General Assembly. 

128 Jew-hating (or goat rapist-fearing) countries said the feckless fuck in the White (Racist.) House is nothing but blather.

I'm betting the Group Of 128
will get all of our tax money they were expecting.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

HEY MORGAN! PUT YOUR DICK DOWN AND HAVE ANOTHER DOUBLE CHEESEBURGER!

OMG, this is priceless! Commie stooge with a camera Morgan Spurlock confesses to being a serial sexual predator before the skeletons in his closet even get a chance to look up Gloria Allred's phone number!

Will his bold preemptive strike save what he thinks of as his career? Stay tuned kiddies!

From Washington's other other newspaper:

Morgan Spurlock steps down from his production company...

If SNL had any balls (or they weren't commies too) Spurlick's blog post would make a classic skit.


“Super Size Me” director Morgan Spurlock has stepped down from Warrior Poets, the New York-based production company he founded in 2004. The announcement came on Thursday, a day after he shared a confessional blog post admitting to his long history of sexual harassment.

Harassment? Says you. He sounds like a rapist to me. Or as the late Huge Hefner might call him, a "playboy".

“On behalf of Warrior Poets, (Hee-hee! "His gun's a pen.") we as partners have always supported our company and its endeavors. As of today, Morgan Spurlock will be stepping down effective immediately,” a spokeswoman for the company told The Washington Post in a statement on Thursday. No further explanation was offered.

Spurlock, who wrote that he “built a career on finding the truth,” (Oh, Margaret!) shared the detailed account of his misconduct stretching back to his college days in a post that he tweeted on Wednesday night with the note, “I am Part of the Problem.”

The message came just months after he sold his documentary “Super Size Me 2: Holy Chicken!” to YouTube Red for $3.5 million, according to Deadline. Spurlock also has a forthcoming docu-series titled “Cultureshock” on A&E, set to premiere in 2018.

“As I sit around watching hero after hero, (Who, asshole? Franken? Conyers? Clinton? Roy Moore? What a fuckhead.) man after man, (Ha! Your definition of "man" leaves quite a bit to be desired.) fall at the realization of their past indiscretions, I don’t sit by and wonder ‘who will be next?’ ” he began. “I wonder, ‘when will they come for me?’ ”

He heard the fascist left's Black Mariah driving down his street and confessed like a Menshevik at a Stalinist show trial.

In the blog post, he chronicled his multiple infidelities, verbal sexual harassment in the workplace, battle with depression and decades-long struggle with alcohol abuse.

Booze and sadness makes him hurt girls. I see a future in Country music ahead.

“I can’t blindly act as though I didn’t somehow play a part in this,” Spurlock wrote about the sexual harassment epidemic in Hollywood. “Over my life, there have been many instances that parallel what we see every day in the news.”

To support this statement, he offered several examples of his sexual misconduct throughout the post, always punctuating the harrowing stories with a variation on the phrase “I am part of the problem.”

The first instance he divulged took place in college, when he had a one-night sexual encounter with a girl that he thought was consensual but she later referred to as “rape.”

After a night of drinking, the two went back to his room and “began fooling around,” but she pushed him off her. Still clothed, the two laid in bed for a while laughing and joking. Before long they were “fooling around” again, though this time they took off their clothes.

The girl, whom Spurlock didn’t name, said she didn’t want to have sex, but they eventually did anyway. During intercourse, the girl began crying. The two stopped having sex, and Spurlock tried comforting her.

“I thought I was doing ok, I believed she was feeling better. She believed she was raped,” Spurlock wrote, adding, “That’s why I’m part of the problem.”

Actually Morgan, your giant penis was too much for her. It isn't your fault.

Spurlock next recounted the behavior that led to him settling a sexual harassment allegation with a former female assistant.

He would often yell at her from across the office, using diminutive nicknames like “hot pants” and “sex pants,” which he thought were funny but later realized had “completely demeaned and belittled her to a place of non-existence.”

When his assistant quit, she told Spurlock that he had to pay her to remain silent about his consistent verbal sexual harassment, the director wrote.

“I paid for peace of mind. I paid for her silence and cooperation. Most of all, I paid so I could remain who I was,” Spurlock wrote.

A rich, lying, fascist douche-bag. Congrats. You'll always be that.

Spurlock then wrote that he has “been unfaithful to every wife and girlfriend” he’s ever had, adding that his hatred of this behavior “didn’t make me stop.”

That's how playboys find new girlfriends, right? Hello? Hasn't anybody heard of the Fuck-U-All Revolution? You know, girls want it just like guys so it's ok to fuck 'em like blow-up dolls and then throw them away. Anybody?

Musing on what spurred this pattern of infidelity, Spurlock wrote that he was sexually abused “as a boy and as a young man in my teens.” He told only his first wife about the abuse, “for fear of being seen as weak or less than a man.” He also wrote that he suffered from depression and has used alcohol to cope with the mental illness since he was 13 years old and that he hasn’t been “sober for more than a week in 30 years.”

Oh. Drunk, sad, abused, AND crazy. That and the fact he supports Planned Babykilling makes everything good.

Calling himself “someone who consistently hurts those closest to me,” he wrote that “I have helped create a world of disrespect through my own actions.”

He concluded the post by promising to “do better,” to “be better.” To begin, he wrote, “I’m going to be more honest with you and myself.”

Do the world a favor. SHUT UP, GO HOME, AND JERK OFF INTO YOUR PILES OF ILL-GOTTEN MONEY, YOU PRICK. 

The post received mixed reactions, because, as Andrea Mandell wrote in USA Today, “His motive remains unclear: Is Spurlock purely trying to take responsibility for his actions? Get ahead of new allegations? Preserve his reputation as a documentarian? Reassure investors, like those at CBS and A&E?”

One Twitter user said it is “brave to come forward.” Another thanked him for his “honestly and bravery.”

Many didn’t feel like he deserved any praise, however.

“Morgan Spurlock is not brave, he’s trying to get ahead of the story and give you a reason so when you hear about how garbage he is, you think of the reason,” comedian Peter Coffin wrote on Twitter.
One user called him “opportunistic.” Another said that despite his post, “he’s still bad and I want him to go away.”


TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.