Hell, we'd be lucky if the only thing wrong with A Cockjerk Orange is disordered sexual desire.

Well, maybe. All sins are related, after all. Sneaking around and fellating other world leaders begets lying and lying begets pride and pride begets...get it?


From Washington's other newspaper:

Colbert is silent after facing #firecolbert backlash over Trump joke ...



President Trump has, for months, been the target of Stephen Colbert’s pointed jokes and mockery.

But many on social media believe the “Late Show” host went too far Monday night in making an oral-sex joke regarding Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

#FireColbert was trending on Twitter Wednesday morning. There’s a new Twitter account called @firecolbert. Its first tweet: “It’s time to #FireColbert! It’s time he be removed from CBS. Let your voice be heard! #Boycott all of Stephen Colbert’s advertisers.” There’s also a new website, firecolbert.com.

The anger from Trump supporters was over a series of jokes that Colbert unloaded in the last two minutes of his monologue on Monday night in reaction to how the president dealt with CBS News political director John Dickerson.

[Stephen Colbert hits Trump below the belt]

Here are some of them:

“Mr. Trump, your presidency, I love your presidency. I call it “Disgrace the Nation.”

“Sir, you attract more skinheads than free Rogaine.”

That is worse than unfunny. It is ignorant. Skinheads want to be bald. Somebody needs to be fired for that one.

“You have more people marching against you than cancer.”

“You talk like a sign language gorilla who got hit in the head.”

Poor gorilla. Where are the PETA clowns when we need them? Primate-on-primate crime is not funny.

And here’s the joke that has angered many:

“In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c— holster.”

I think the word he used was "cock", which is often a euphemism for "penis", which is the primary male sexual organ, albeit decreasingly so. [How the hell does Big Rooster let us get away with that?]

I'm not hip like ol' Stevie [I know that's probably "homophobic" too, whatever the hell "homophobic" is supposed to mean. Like, technically, it means "fear of self" which describes all fascists. But then again, "gay" means happy, which the practitioners of non-Euclidean sex definitely are not. Why do fascists screw with innocent words? Because it works.] but from all accounts it appears that Czarina Putinesca's pudenda is more like a pop gun than a .44 revolver.

The thing that is really upsetting is that an unfunny left-fascist moron can get laughs from his left-fascist audience by calling the right-fascist Orange Messiah a homosexual. Why do sodomites put up with this? I guess being treated like worthless perverts is ok when your political "friends" do it.

Or maybe they are just into being abused. I understand that's a thing.

What if my earlier speculation is correct and Clumpy The Clown is really, really into overcompensating dicktaters and "strongmen"? Then it is hate speech against the differentially turned-on.

Maybe if that tiny psycho-ghoul from North Korea puts on a pair of leather chaps and memorizes a few lines from some homoerotic snuff films, he'll get to keep oppressing his people indefinitely.


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

The triumph of the Clumptablishment and the Fake Conservatives.

There will never be a repeal of Okhrana's fascist health power grab because we are ruled by the power-mad and the one thing they NEVER do is give back power they have stolen.


Please remember these truths, kiddies:

"Populism" is nothing more than buying enough votes to grab power.

"Patriotism" is true love of country.

"Nationalism" is hatred of others fomented by elites to distract the Clumpentariat from the fact they are slaves.

"Fascism" is the rule of men instead of the rule of law.

Trump Struggles to Rally Moderate Republicans on Healthcare Vote

https://www.yahoo.com/.../trump-struggles-rally-moderate-republicans-083142922.ht...

Changes to Republicans' Amended Health Care Bill Could be Disastrous · New Republican Health Care Bill Exempts Congress From Changes to Obamacare.

NewsInn | GOP's Health-Bill Woes Show New Power of Party's Centrist ...

newsinn.org/display/.../gop-s-health-bill-woes-show-new-power-of-party-s-centrist-wi...

With the looming possibility of a vote in Congress as soon as this week on the new Republican health care bill, Kimmel called on his audience to fight for ...

What you need to know about the GOP plan and pre-existing ...

usa.news.itthon.ma/.../what-you-need-to-know-about-the-gop-plan-and-preexisting-c...

People with pre-existing conditions may have to pay much more for their insurance with the new Republican health care bill.

Who Opposes the New Republican Health Care Bill in the House ...

www.wsj.com/graphics/house-health-care-holdouts-round-two/

Moderate Republicans threaten to sink the latest bill to replace Obamacare.

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

Eleanor Jesus Dionne Jr.'s words would have some impact if she hadn't spent her whole life excusing the same crap committed by politicians with whom she agrees.

That being said, the old bag is right. Just read this column a second time using words like Okhrana, Schickelgruber, Goober I, Goober II, et cetera, et cetera...ad infinitum, ad nauseam.


From Pittsburgh's other newspaper:

E.J. Dionne Jr.: Verbiage for the workers | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


If words could bring legal actions, “populism” would sue for aggravated abuse. And President Donald Trump would be a co-defendant.

In a season of dispiriting tidings, few habits have been more infuriating than the ease with which political commentators of all stripes have applied the P-word to Donald Trump. Mr. Trump has courted this with old-fashioned union hall rhetoric about his devotion to “hard-working men and women.” He claimed during his campaign that he would end tax breaks that helped the rich, rip up trade treaties and be vigilant against the flight of jobs to China — pronouncing its name in a menacing way.

But as is the case with everything involving Mr. Trump, his words had no connection to thought. They were all about the effect they would have. Mr. Trump had warned us about this in best-sellers where he admitted that he uses words primarily to get the deal he wants.

This hasn’t stopped the cruel mistreatment of the concept of populism, invoked again and again to turn Mr. Trump into a latter-day William Jennings Bryan (a deeply religious and, on most things, very progressive figure who would likely be appalled by Mr. Trump) or Pitchfork Ben Tillman. That Mr. Trump spends almost all of his time with very wealthy people and only appears truly happy when he’s at one of his resorts never seems to lower his populist score. The defense is to ask: Why can’t a rich guy speak for the people?

Well, yes, Franklin D. Roosevelt was called “a traitor to his class.” But Mr. Trump is nothing of the sort. Just take a look at the net worth of those staffing his administration. We now know that what he said during the campaign to win blue-collar votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin was disconnected from any intentions he had — or, alternatively, that he never pondered the meaning of his words until he got elected.

Trumpism means verbiage for the workers (words really are cheap in Mr. Trump’s emporium) and policies for his buddies. None of the substantive executive orders he has issued — the ones that aren’t just meaningless calls for studies and commissions — has strengthened the hand of workers or consumers. Instead, they are aimed at getting rid of rules that corporations would prefer not to live by.

Then came Mr. Trump’s content-free approach to scuttling Obamacare. He had promised a more generous system. But in his eagerness to sign something, anything, he embraced a bill that would have deprived millions of health coverage, many of them his own supporters. He didn’t care. He just wanted a “win” to tweet about. The various repeal schemes have been so bad that even this Pyrrhic victory has eluded him.

And on trade, he has walked away from his pledges on the North American Free Trade Agreement, though his position changes almost hourly. “Hey, I’m a nationalist and a globalist,” Mr. Trump said last week. “I’m both.” This may be the perfect Trump sound bite: oily and utterly meaningless. He has also abandoned his tough-on-China stance wholesale.

Then came his tax proposal — or rather, his single page of talking points. Whatever else is clear about the plan, it is a classic tax giveaway to the wealthy, especially to Mr. Trump himself. We can’t know for sure because he won’t show us his tax returns. But his outline is about as “populist” as the membership list at Mar-a-Lago.

To be fair, there is one area where those claiming Mr. Trump as a populist could make their case in court. Although he has given up for now on funding The Wall, he keeps making anti-immigrant pronouncements and continues to issue and defend constitutionally dubious executive orders to show how hostile he is toward outsiders.

Mr. Trump’s nativism does fit one of the many conflicting definitions scholars offer of populism, this one from Princeton University’s Jan-Werner Muller in his recent book, “What is Populism?”
Mr. Muller argues that populists “claim that they, and they alone, represent the people.” They try to define a “single, homogeneous, authentic people,” and “treat their political opponents as ‘enemies of the people’ and seek to exclude them altogether.”

This is certainly insightful about leaders of Mr. Trump’s stripe, even if other takes on populism put more stress on its authentically democratic side. What it shows is that all that remains of Mr. Trump’s populism is the part that focuses on hatred and division. Giving actual help to the people who voted for him is not part of the plan.

May I thus propose a Populism Legal Defense Fund? The word deserves better than it’s getting.

E.J. Dionne Jr. is a syndicated columnist for The Washington Post (ejdionne@washpost.com).

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

Bret Stephens is about to be kicked to death by the Heat Nazis.

Climate of Complete Certainty - The New York Times

This is Bret Stephens’s first column.

Don't be surprised if the fascist left and Iskanka Clump make sure it is his only one.

When someone is honestly 55 percent right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60 percent right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God.  

But what’s to be said about 75 percent right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100 percent right? Whoever says he’s 100 percent right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal.

           — An old Jew of Galicia


They aren't the Chosen People of God for nothing, kiddies. Of course, this was once called common sense by Jews and Gentiles alike. Now it is..."fake news"?

In the final stretch of last year’s presidential race, Hillary Clinton and her team thought they were, if not 100 percent right, then very close.

Right on the merits. Confident in their methods. Sure of their chances. When Bill Clinton suggested to his wife’s advisers that, considering Brexit, they might be underestimating the strength of the populist tide, the campaign manager, Robby Mook, had a bulletproof answer: The data run counter to your anecdotes.

That detail comes from “Shattered,” Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes’s compulsively readable account of Clinton’s 2016 train wreck. Mook belonged to a new breed of political technologists with little time for retail campaigning and limitless faith in the power of models and algorithms to minimize uncertainty and all but predict the future.

“Mook and his ‘Moneyball’ approach to politics rankled the old order of political operatives and consultants because it made some of their work obsolete,” Allen and Parnes write about the campaign’s final days. “The memo that one Hillary adviser had sent months earlier warning that they should add three or four points to Trump’s poll position was a distant memory.”

There’s a lesson here. We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris. From Robert McNamara to Lehman Brothers to Stronger Together, cautionary tales abound.

We ought to know this by now, but we don’t. Instead, we respond to the inherent uncertainties of data by adding more data without revisiting our assumptions, creating an impression of certainty that can be lulling, misleading and often dangerous. Ask Clinton.

Lord have mercy! Where has Bret Stephens been all our lives?

With me so far? Good. Let’s turn to climate change.

Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.

Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the earth since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming*, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.

*Actually Bret, real science knows that 134 years means nothing when one is talking about the time scale upon which our climate actually changes. Also, there are plenty of people who dispute that "human influence" thing who have not been silenced by the same people who still preach and screech that communism is "scientific".

But for a guy who works for the Old Gray Whore [For now, at least.] you're doing great.

By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn’t, because there’s another lesson here — this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy. As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power. (Emphasis mine. - F.G.)

Bret Stephens For President!

I’ve taken the epigraph for this column from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, who knew something about the evils of certitude. Perhaps if there had been less certitude and more second-guessing in Clinton’s campaign, she’d be president. Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.

Correction: May 1, 2017
An earlier version of this article misstated the area that warmed by 0.85 degrees Celsius as noted in the 2014 Intergovernmental Panel report. It was the globally averaged combined land and ocean surface, not only the Northern Hemisphere.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the Orange Menace and his ignorant cow of a daughter to pull us out of the Paris climate treaty. That was a campaign lie to roil up the AWUGs.

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

Heap Big Lying Squaw is a racist who hates mulattoes!

Of course she's a racist. She hates Indians so much, she pretends to be one!


From Western Journalism:

Elizabeth Warren Calls Out Obama For Discarding Middle Class


Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has broken from the pack and is sharing her true opinion on former President Barack Obama’s record.

Obama frequently pointed to national statistics as proof of his administration’s success. 15 million new jobs generated over 75 consecutive months of job growth, an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent, and an economy that grew 11.5 percent from before the great recession were common talking points of the outgoing Obama administration.

As nice as those numbers look on paper, Warren recognizes that they don’t mean a thing to a still-struggling American middle class.

“I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talk about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” Warren told the Guardian. “That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans.”

“And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy. Worse than being left behind, they’re getting kicked in the teeth,” the progressive senator added.
Warren railed against Obama and other members of her own party for selling out the working class.

“The Republicans have clearly thrown their lot in with the rich and the powerful, but so have a lot of Democrats,” she said.

This isn’t the first time Warren accused Obama of selling out.

The progressive senator said she was “troubled” after learning of Obama’s $400,000 Wall Street speech. She described money in politics “as a snake that slithers through Washington. And that it shows up in so many different ways here in Washington.”

Warren’s criticism of her party is a far cry from her position during the election. She threw her support in with the Democratic establishment during the election, becoming one of the most prominent attack dogs against Trump. “We nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever,” she warned Trump during the election.

The Massachusetts senator remains a fierce critic of Trump as she distances herself from the Democratic establishment.

Warren, who is considered a possible White House contender in 2020, accused Trump of pulling a massive reversal in his first 100 days by selling out the federal government to millionaires and billionaires.

“I think what Donald Trump did was he said, ‘The system is rigged and I will be out there for working people every single day; that is my first priority,’” Warren said. “He got elected and did a 180-degree turn, headed in the exactly the opposite direction.”

“He put millionaires and billionaires in charge of his government; he has signed off on one law after another to make it easier for government contractors to steal people’s wages, to make it easier for corporations to hide it when they kill or maim their employees, to make it easier for investment advisers to cheat retirees.”

Warren remains confident that her party will come back from its losses in 2016. She spoke of the anti-Trump “resistance” movement with pride.

“I think that when the history of this time period is written it will be about Donald Trump’s election, no doubt, but it will be about the Women’s March the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated. Democracy changed in America on that day,” she said.

“We are no longer a country that believes we can do politics only once every four years, or even once every two years, no longer a country that says that democracy is only about elections and that it will tend to itself in the time periods between elections.”

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

Two painfully [willfully?] ignorant opinion pieces from guys who can't [won't?] GET IT.

From the Virginian Pilot:

John Baer: Trump's first 100 days got a boost from Democrats


President Donald Trump’s first 100 days got an assist, however unintended, from the opposition party.

And that’s because Democratic leaders, through words and action, have shown that they haven’t learned lessons from Campaign 2016.

Once Trump took office, they engaged in the same old play-to-the-base and self-indulgence that helped them lose the election; that fosters division, precludes consensus and deconstructs any argument that they (unlike that other party) are solely about serving the public good.

In short, Democrats help Trump by hurting themselves. They help him by reminding voters why he won, which accrues to the benefit of the incumbent.

In the first 100 days, they helped him in at least four ways.

One: Their action regarding the nomination of now-Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. It was reactionary and wrong.

Yes, Republicans walked in darkness by refusing to give President Barack Obama’s high-court choice, Merrick Garland, even a confirmation hearing. The nominee was qualified. The GOP abused the process. Democrats screamed foul.

But if it was wrong to oppose a fit nominee in 2016, it was wrong to oppose one in 2017. An opportunity to show partisan restraint was lost. Forcing a Senate “nuclear option” blew up Democrats’ chance to strike a blow for compromise instead of hollow political retribution.

Two: Democratic National Committee chief Tom Perez’s recent assertion that it is “not negotiable” that “every Democrat” support abortion rights. Plain stupid.

It tears at the fabric of the party’s touted multicolored quilt of inclusion so often used to contrast “closed-minded” Republicans. It’s the base-playing that Trump plays. It tells independents that Democrats are no less ideologically rigid than Republicans.

Dumbass. The lust for power is not an ideology. It is a way of life for every fascist and we have lost the will to destroy them.

Three: Hillary Clinton, back on the speaking circuit, saying at a San Francisco speech in March: “Now is the time to demand the progress we want to see.”

Actually, last year was the time. Many thoughtful Democrats who can’t abide Trump believe that Clinton — not Russia, not FBI Director Jim Comey — had more to do with Trump’s win than any single factor, including Trump.

Reminders of Clinton’s campaign and post-campaign assessments — such as this from the March speech: “There was a recent study showing that none of my plans were really publicized or talked about, so that gives me something for speeches for at least a decade. … I will never stop speaking out” — don’t exactly help her party move on. And such reminders refuel Trump loyalists.

Four: Barack Obama’s decision to cash in (further) by charging $400,000 per speech. As he might say, “C’mon, man.”

As an ex-president, Obama already gets a taxpayer-funded staff, security, a $207,000 pension (about half his presidential salary) plus expenses, which can run to six figures.

And, as reported in March, he and former first lady Michelle Obama snagged book contracts with Penguin Random House paying $65 million-plus.

When is enough enough? I know, all perfectly legal, as American as can be. But there’s something distasteful, no matter who does it, in using public service for personal gain. In this case, it doesn’t help Obama’s brand or, by extension, the brand of his party as it seeks to recapture working-class voters.

None of this is to dismiss Trump’s many serious shortcomings 100 days in. You can assemble your own list. But assessments of Trump at this stage should be weighed in concert with assessments of the opposition, even though the opposition is out of power.

Being without power is not the same as being without purpose or principle. Right now, it’s hard to find much of either in “the party of the people.” And that, so far and going forward, is a plus for Trump.

John Baer is a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News. Email: baerj@phillynews.com.

From the Salt Lake Tribune comes a Dana Milbank piece regurgitated from Washington's other newspaper:

Dana Milbank: A deep dive into Trump's elaborate fantasyland

Here's one genuine achievement of the Trump administration's first 100 days: The president, it seems, has come to realize he is in over his head.

"This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier," he told Reuters in an interview this week. "I do miss my old life. I like to work so that's not a problem, but this is actually more work."

I'll save you the trouble, kiddies. Dana, the ugliest chick in the AmeriKKKaLast Media, thinks Orange Clump is a moron and she's going to prove it to you beyond any doubt with the orange pervert's own words! How about that? Pretty clever of her, no?

If only Dana and her ilk had given a damn about the madness and stupidity of the fascists she likes, maybe Clump would still be in New Jersey trying to steal the homes of little old widows and not playing at being leader of the slightly less un-free world.

I can empathize. Having Donald Trump as president has been hard on all of us.

A week earlier, he told the Associated Press of a related discovery he made during his first 100 days: The U.S. government is big.

"I never realized how big it was," he said. "Every decision is much harder than you'd normally make. ... So you know, I really just see the bigness of it all."

So what does he do now that he is in a job that is so hard running a government that is so big? He pretends. He has developed an elaborate fantasyland in which everything goes according to plan. All of the following statements, which I have assembled with an assist from the work of Post fact-checkers Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee, are Trump's own words; none is entirely true.
This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine. No administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days. [Rep.] Elijah Cummings [D-Md.] was in my office and he said, "You will go down as one of the great presidents in the history of our country." He said "you will be the greatest president in the history of this country."

I have great relationships with Congress. The Republican Party has various groups, all great people. And I have a great relationship with all of them. I like Ted Cruz, he's a friend of mine. One of the best chemistries I had was with [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel. We had unbelievable chemistry. And people have given me credit for having great chemistry with all of the leaders.

We've only been here for a tiny speck of time, and what I've done with regulations ... is amazing. I think we've done more than anybody for this short period of time. More has been done in the last six weeks than has been done in years with the previous administration. We have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine. Covers, nobody's had more covers.

Despite what you hear in the press, health care is coming along great. We are making great progress with health care.

We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban. You had Delta with a massive -- a massive problem with their computer system at the airports.

This wall is not going to be that expensive.

I don't know Putin. I have nothing to do with Russia. The Russia story is a total hoax. I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election.

I didn't know Steve [Bannon]. If there's a shutdown. It's the Democrats' fault. I think the losers are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Now, they own Obamacare. If something happens blame him [federal judge James Robart] and [the] court system.

I've been against the war in Iraq from the beginning. You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden.

We are sending an armada, very powerful.

When you talk about currency manipulation, when you talk about devaluations, they [China] are world champions. They're [China] not currency manipulators.

I guess it was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan. We ended up winning by a massive amount. No, no, you have to understand, I had a tremendous victory, one of the great victories ever. The failing @nytimes was forced to apologize. Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.

They say I had the biggest crowd in the history of inaugural speeches. It looked like a million, million and a half people. It was almost raining ... but God looked down and he said, we're not going to let it rain on your speech. And then it became really sunny.

The 100 days is just an artificial barrier. It's not very meaningful. But we've done a lot. Somebody put out the concept of a 100-day plan. But yeah. Well, I'm mostly there on most items.

Twitter, @Milbank

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

Pity poor Sauron Ingraham. She has become what she loathes.

Poor dumb cow. Last night on the FOX News Network, she turned herself inside out trying to excuse one of A Cokjerk Orange's latest whoppers in which it referred to North Korea's psycho-ghoul dicktater as "a tasty dish" or something.



White House defends Trump's praise for Kim Jong Un | New York Post

She sounded exactly like one of those left-fascist female female-haters who sold their vaginas to protect the serial rapist-in-chief King Goober II way back in the 1990s.

She finally fell back to her default position as a fake conservative that apparently appeals to a lot of stupid people out there: "Well, we've let the smart people try to fix this North Korea thingee for seventy years with no luck, so why not give an ignorant sociopath a try?"

Brilliant!

If it wasn't so sick and disgusting, this would be hilarious...

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

NO MATTER WHAT YOU VOTE FOR, THE CLUMPTABLISHMENT ALWAYS WINS.

Here's the bottom line, kiddies:

"Populism" is nothing more than buying enough votes to grab power.

"Patriotism" is true love of country.

"Nationalism" is hatred of others fomented by elites to distract the Clumpentariat from the fact they are slaves.

"Fascism" is the rule of men instead of the rule of law.


From Western Journalism:

Conservatives Lose With Behemoth $1.1 Trillion Budget Deal


Much to the dismay of fiscal conservatives, a stopgap budget bill with bipartisan support is expected to pass the Republican-led House of Representatives this week.

According to recent reports, the nearly 1,600-page bill will provide funding for numerous leftist projects, including ObamaCare implementation and government-backed preschool programs.
Members of the military – along with all federal civilian employees – will receive a 1 percent pay raise.

This is some of what Clumpskyism means in practice:

1] Planned Babykilling continues to get your tax dollars to murder babies.

2] The bullshit wall on the southern border does not get a dime.

(BTW, if we really wanted to stop foreigners from illegally entering this country, we would put troops between us and Mexico and order them to shoot anybody crossing illegally. I guess our moral and intellectual superiors on the left and the right think that is too mean.)

3] Left-fascist "sanctuary" cities and states are rewarded for breaking the law with your tax dollars.

Business as usual in DC. Clump is a power-mad cretin just like all the rest of them.



The House is expected to vote on the bill Wednesday, just hours before a current spending bill is set to expire. While members of both parties are touting a victory in that a deal was reached before another government shutdown was imminent, many conservatives are bemoaning the largely one-sided concessions this bill requires.

In addition to the sheer cost associated with the deal, a number of proposals – including stricter regulations on abortion and the Environmental Protection Agency – are missing from the deal. Furthermore, leftist talking points regarding this bill’s relatively lower cost compared to a similar spending measure passed in 2010 is far less substantial when military cuts are taken out of the equation.

A few nods to veterans and their families are included for good measure, giving patriots a meager reason to celebrate. Additionally, two leftist initiatives – a high-speed railway favored by Obama and the impending ban on incandescent light bulbs – were both nixed from the budget proposal

In all, and as usual, the Obama administration and its ideological allies seem to have bested Republican leadership in compiling this bloated budget bill. With the recent White House announcement that Obama intends to rely even more on executive orders in the coming year, it can be frightening to imagine what policies he will push through against the objection of Congress.

Too many GOP legislators are already eager to capitulate to leftist demands. To many, the fact that this bill is predicted to sail through a Republican-controlled House is conclusive evidence of that trend.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com

Mr. Agee might be a fake conservative, but it doesn't really matter. It has long been impossible for any man with principles to associate either political party with anything but power-lust.

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

Proof that allah hates goat rapists too.

Wild boars overrun Islamic State position, kill 3 militants - MSN.com

This story may be the new definition of irony.

BTW, have you noticed even the left-fascists have dropped "ISIL" from their lexicon? What a legacy The Community Organizer From The High Yellow Lagoon left the world!

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

Here's good advice if you are perfect, don't have any disordered passions, don't care what anyone thinks, have your life planned out down to the second, and KNOW you can do no wrong.

Strong Women Should Never Do These Things For a Man - MSN.com


When you're head over heels for someone, or maybe when you're feeling insecure, it's sometimes easy to put someone else's wants and needs before your own. But if you don't catch yourself in time, you may lose a part of who you are. Ladies, don't ever do the following five things for a man - or for anyone. 

1. Change your appearance.

If your SO is a decent human being, they won't ever force you to alter the way you look for their benefit. They should love you for you, and all of you. If your weight, hair, or style really bothers him, he's clearly not with you for the right reasons. Any physical changes you make should be made because you want them, not for attention or for someone else.


2. Compromise your passions.

Absolutely no one should get in the way of your goals. It is your life, after all, and nobody else will regret leaving any dreams behind more than you. The decision to pass on a job opportunity or put an idea on hold might seem best at the moment, but the future is never guaranteed. Your partner should support your endeavors, and if he's willing to come along for the ride, that's just a bonus.


3. Wait for his approval.

A strong woman plays by her rules and doesn't sit around for instructions. You should be assertive and go forward with your own decisions rather than seek validation from someone else. You're grown enough to know what's best for you.


4. Cancel already-set plans.

It's different to reschedule when something important comes up, but it's problematic when you drop what you're doing just to be with him. Your friends and family should not be on the sideline and only brought in when he's unavailable. You should never be on standby, and if he's respectful, he won't mind catching you another time.


5. Let him change who you are.

Don't change who you are for anyone but yourself. And if you do decide to make any self-adjustments, they should be improvements that will better you. It's possible that he'd be more interested if you do x, y, and z, but he wouldn't genuinely like you for you. Never lose sight of who you are.

With all due respect, ladies, exactly who are you?


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

What exactly will Clumpy The Clown give the Slave Chinese regime in order to secure a "win" for itself on the North Korean front?

From Business Insider:

Trump's plan to stop North Korea — and what's wrong with his approach ...



President Donald Trump has a plan to stop North Korea, and it doesn't sound much different from past efforts.

According to a statement from his top officials on Monday, here's the plan:

"The President’s approach aims to pressure North Korea into dismantling its nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation programs by tightening economic sanctions and pursuing diplomatic measures with our Allies and regional partners."

Hmmm...tastes like Chickenhawk...


     
President Donald Trump gestures as he speaks to Navy and shipyard personnel aboard nuclear aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford at Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va., Thursday, March 2, 2017. The ship which is still under construction is due to be delivered to the Navy later this year. AP Photo / Steve Helber



While the statement acknowledges that "past efforts have failed" to curb North Korea's nuclear program, it essentially promises to continue the same efforts that have failed.

In fact, this statement from Trump is almost indistinguishable from the Obama-era "strategic patience" that both Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Vice President Mike Pence declared dead on separate trips to Asia.

Senators who attended Wednesday's classified briefing on North Korea at the White House described it as reviewing old, non-specific information, and in one case, as a "dog-and-pony show."

Nowhere in Trump's official statement does he return to the hawkish rhetoric that Secretary of Defense Mattis, Tillerson, and Pence have all espoused about North Korea on separate trips to Asia. The new plan focuses more on sanctions, which have been in place for decades — and just don't work.

But the threat from North Korea has grown, and the past approaches of presidents might not cut it anymore.

On April 15, North Korea rolled out a wide array of new missile types that stunned nonproliferation experts. Some estimate that within two to three years, North Korea will begin testing an intercontinental ballistic missile that could strike Washington, and no current missile defenses could stop such an attack.

Simply put, Trump's strategic patience by another name worked for other presidents, but unfortunately the critical moment that demands action on North Korea may fall during Trump's term.
Omar Lamrani, a senior military analyst at the geopolitical analysis firm Stratfor, previously told Business Insider that if North Korea achieved an ICBM, it would represent a "point of no return" in multilateral relations with the Kim regime.

Essentially, the US would be forced to continue sanctions and hope for a major breakthrough in missile defense, launch an all-out war with an adversary that can level Washington, or cave to North Korea, perhaps the world's worst abuser of human rights, and accept them as a legitimate state and a player in Northeast Asia.

All of the options listed above are terrible, and while presidents before Trump could afford to kick the can down the road, Trump may have to be the one to make a terrible choice.

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

If this headline doesn't make you howl with laughter, you're probably a fascist...and a dumbass.

Neanderthals in California? - Detroit News


But seriously, kiddies, the point I want you to get is this: The term "settled science" is a totalitarian construct intended to control people by limiting their thinking within certain parameters.

In other words, 2+2=4 is only necessarily true for people without imaginations...and their  jackbooted moral and intellectual superiors.

Al Gorehound, call your exquisitely plush office.





New York — A startling new report asserts that the first known Americans arrived much, much earlier than scientists thought — more than 100,000 years ago —— and maybe they were Neanderthals.

If true, the finding would far surpass the widely accepted date of about 15,000 years ago.

Researchers say a site in Southern California shows evidence of humanlike behavior from about 130,000 years ago, when bones and teeth of an elephantlike mastodon were evidently smashed with rocks.

The earlier date means the bone-smashers were not necessarily members of our own species, Homo sapiens. The researchers speculate that these early Californians could have instead been species known only from fossils in Europe, Africa and Asia: Neanderthals, a little-known group called Denisovans, or another human forerunner named Homo erectus.

“The very honest answer is, we don’t know,” said Steven Holen, lead author of the paper and director of the nonprofit Center for American Paleolithic Research in Hot Springs, South Dakota. No remains of any individuals were found.

Whoever they were, they could have arrived by land or sea. They might have come from Asia via the Beringea land bridge that used to connect Siberia to Alaska, or maybe come across by watercraft along the Beringea coast or across open water to North America, before turning southward to California, Holen said in a telephone interview.

Holen and others present their evidence in a paper released Wednesday by the journal Nature . Not surprisingly, the report was met by skepticism from other experts who don’t think there is enough proof.

The research dates back to the winter of 1992-3. The site was unearthed during a routine dig by researchers during a freeway expansion project in San Diego. Analysis of the find was delayed to assemble the right expertise, said Tom Demere, curator of paleontology at the San Diego Natural History Museum, another author of the paper.

The Nature analysis focuses on remains from a single mastodon, and five stones found nearby. The mastodon’s bones and teeth were evidently placed on two stones used as anvils and smashed with three stone hammers, to get at nutritious marrow and create raw material for tools.

Patterns of damage on the limb bones looked like what happened in experiments when elephant bones were smashed with rocks. And the bones and stones were found in two areas, each roughly centered on what’s thought to be an anvil.

The stones measured about 8 inches to 12 inches long and weighed up to 32 pounds. They weren’t hand-crafted tools, Demere said.
The users evidently found them and brought them to the site.

The excavation also found a mastodon tusk in a vertical position, extending down into older layers, which may indicate it had been jammed into the ground as a marker or to create a platform, Demere said.

The fate of the visitors is not clear. Maybe they died out without leaving any descendants, he said.

Experts not connected with the study provided a range of reactions.

“If the results stand up to further scrutiny, this does indeed change everything we thought we knew,” said Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London. Neanderthals and Denisovans are the most likely identities of the visitors, he said.

But “many of us will want to see supporting evidence of this ancient occupation from other sites, before we abandon the conventional model of a first arrival by modern humans within the last 15,000 years,” he wrote in an email.

Erella Hovers of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University in Tempe, who wrote a commentary accompanying the work, said in an email that the archaeological interpretation seemed convincing. Some other experts said the age estimate appears sound.

But some were skeptical that the rocks were really used as tools. Vance Holliday of the University of Arizona in Tucson said the paper shows the bones could have been broken the way the authors assert, but they haven’t demonstrated that’s the only way.

Richard Potts of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, said he doesn’t reject the paper’s claims outright, but he finds the evidence “not yet solid.” For one thing, the dig turned up no basic stone cutting tools or evidence of butchery or the use of fire, as one might expect from Homo sapiens or our close evolutionary relatives.

The lead author, Holen, told reporters Tuesday that he and co-authors were ready for such criticism.

“We expected skepticism because of the extremely old age of this site,” he said. “I think we made a very good case.”


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

The Slants come to Amishland.

From the newspaper with no name:

The Slants, at Zenkaikon this weekend, await Supreme Court ruling on trademark battle ...

Simon Tam alternates tour dates with Supreme Court appearances.

The bassist and founder of the Slants has battled to trademark the band’s name for six years. The court denied the Slants’ application, stating that the band — whose members are all Asian-Americans — couldn’t register the name since it was a racial slur.

“I thought it was a practical joke when we applied and my attorney told me they denied it on the grounds of us being racist toward Asians,” Tam says. “I was like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me.’ ”

Tam argues that the name is reclaiming the phrase, as other minority groups have used slurs targeted toward them as a form of empowerment.

The band made its oral argument in January and is awaiting a ruling that’s expected, but not guaranteed, to come in June.

Before then, Tam and the Slants will speak and perform at Zenkaikon at the Lancaster County Convention Center this weekend. 

From erasure to epiphany

As a child, Tam jumped up on the family coffee table and started strumming his dad’s guitar. He came of age in the ’80s and was influenced by acts like N.W.A., but also grew to appreciate classic rock like that of the Rolling Stones and the Beatles.

Two months before graduating from college on a full scholarship with a double major, Tam dropped out to move to Portland, Oregon, and tour with the punk rock band the Stivs.

As a young adult, Tam purposefully disconnected himself from his Chinese culture and heritage. After enduring severe bullying in middle school and high school for his ethnicity, Tam wanted to erase his culture from his identity.

“I was just like, ‘I’m really ashamed of being Chinese. I’m just getting ridiculed and tormented everywhere I go,’ ” Tam says.

When he moved to Portland, he longed to reconnect with his culture. “I just was starting to really kind of miss my heritage and aspects of my culture, from the food to the language,” Tam says.

To cope, he bought VHS tapes on eBay of old Jackie Chan and Asian mafia movies. A friend recommended Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill,” which was just about to come out on DVD. Tam says watching the movie was like having an epiphany.

“That was the first time I had seen an American-produced film showing any element of my culture or its people like that,” Tam says. “To kind of have this almost awakening that, wow, maybe in America we can be perceived as something different than the stereotypical nerd or the desexualized male or the exoticized female. … To see that we could be something more was quite powerful.”


Shit. I thought Mr. Tam was starting to sound like something other than a dumbass. Oh well, that doesn't mean the government gets to take away his band's name. If it did, 90% of rock bands would have to be known by numbers...

"Please welcome the 85988's!"

Proud, not ashamed

Watching the movie got Tam thinking about how he could make a difference with his own art. He had seen a handful of Asian-Americans in popular bands, but he wanted to make a more powerful impact on the American entertainment industry.

It took him two years of pasting flyers around town and posting on Craigslist to find enough people to form a lineup and start playing.

The band’s name came to Tam pretty quickly, though. He asked his friends what all Asian people had in common. They’d often answer “slanted eyes.”

“I thought, that’s really interesting, because it’s not true,” Tm says. “Not all Asians have slanted eyes, and Asians aren’t the only people with slanted eyes.”

The name grew on Tam with time.

“It sounds like an ’80s new wave band,” Tam says. “I can imagine Debbie Harry being in a band called the Slants, which is right up the alley for the type of music we are doing.

“Then I thought, ‘You know, we can use this to kind of turn that stereotype about us upside down.’

The very thing that was the object of ridicule for me growing up now could be a symbol of something I could be proud about instead of ashamed of.”

The opposition to the Slants’ quest for trademark argues that the ruling could set precedence for other types of hate speech to be trademarked.

“We’re not some kind of floodgate for hate speech,” Tam says. “The lack of a trademark registration doesn’t actually stop people from using hateful terms anyway.”

Tam says all the struggle has been worth it, though, especially when he interacts with young fans.

“The fact that it’s inspiring young people to kind of get into the arts themselves or find their kind of political voice — I think that’s more than I could ever ask for and certainly more than I ever dreamed of when I first had this idea in my mind,” Tam says.

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