Nom Nom Nom

Sorry, I couldn't resist

Because No Words Suffice

The View Excitedly Asks Caitlyn Jenner to Run for President

Chucky is funnier than Harry Reid

Chuck Schumer demands ICE show him what arrested  ‘law-abiding’ illegals did that was so illegal Senator Chuck Schumer is demanding that Immigration & Customs Enforcement officials tell him what all the illegals they’ve arrested these last few days did that was so illegal: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Trump administration is rounding up and deporting “law-abiding” illegal immigrants and is demanding “details” about who is being targeted in a series of recent raids carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. ICE should send a letter to concerned Dems saying they targeted these particular people because they’re climate change deniers. That plus a lot of them apparently weren’t just wanted for jaywalking: [FULL ASSHAT] Nuff Said

Snow Delay

THIS JUST IN! cuzzin ricky

Bill Maher,‘p**** grabber?'

Former porn star Jenna Jameson has attacked Bill Maher for criticizing President Trump over his infamous “grab them by the p****” remarks, claiming she saw Maher at the Playboy mansion and he “fits right in with us ‘p**** (penis?)  grabbers'”. Hey There!

Hillary's People

Hillary’s sheeple revel in their mindless ignorance Progressive friend expressed absolute horror that Sarah Palin was on the Republican ticket, I asked him to tell me why she was less qualified than Obama. After all, unlike Obama, Palin had experience governing. With his back against the wall, my friend uttered the worst indictment he could think of, and it had nothing to do with Palin’s abilities: “She’s not one of us.” As someone who is by birth and upbringing “one of us,” I know exactly what he meant. The “us” people have all attended prestigious schools, whether public or private or large or small. In the 1990s, the “us” people all watched The West Wing and congratulated themselves on being able to keep up with Aaron Sorkin’s coked-up, rapid-fire dialogue — and, more importantly, they revered the president and staff who tirelessly, week after week, in the vacuum of our TV sets, advanced perfect Progressive policy. The “us” people always laugh at the cartoons in The New Yorker, and they often read the articles. For news, the “us” people all go to the New York Times, where they read the front page and the style section. They feel smug about the fact that they’re entirely comfortable with the LGBTQI marriages now announced on the wedding page. In the car (and they all wish they could have a Tesla), they listen to NPR. In the evening, during or after dinner, they watch NBCCBSABCPBSCNN, but not Fox. If they’re edgy, they watch MSNBC. The “us” people always make sure to see the movies that “everyone” is talking about. And when they say “everyone,” they don’t actually mean that. They mean the reviewers at The New York Times, NPR, and other select, sophisticated outlets. If those reviewers say a movie is important, the “us” people will rave about it too, no matter that the plot was unintelligible, the dialogue mumbled, and the message ugly. “It’s important, don’t you know.” Rather peculiarly, given their snobbery (especially about education), the “us” people think that the opinions of Hollywood actors, many of whom are minimally educated and all of whom live peculiar, cloistered lives, surrounded by unimaginable wealth and unseemly yes-men, are valuable advocates for the “us” crowd. The “us” people believe passionately in climate change (never mind that none of the predictions have borne fruit) and think it’s a brilliant thing to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible. (After all, they’re Tesla drivers.) The little people at home and abroad who depend on fossil fuels for food, protection against temperature extremes, and all other aspects of their basic livelihood will just have to adapt. Mother Gaia is more important.  [FULL Hillary’s sheeple revel in their mindless ignorance] Just delightful ....

Black NFL Asshats

MoSup

#Never Trumpers

TARGET: #Never-Trumpers

'It's a nuclear bomb,' says Rush Limbaugh as traffic melts down server Think of the last time an anonymous think-piece captured the imagination of the public so completely, the server hosting the article melted down. Rush Limbaugh calls the commentary “a nuclear bomb.” And it starts like this, with the Never-Trumpers in the Republican Party the target of the indictment: “2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You – or the leader of your party – may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees. Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.” Authored by “Publius Decius Mus” and published by the Claremont Institute in California, the article has social media ablaze after Limbaugh quoted widely from it, something he seldom does, and hailed it as explosive analysis key to the election of 2016. It’s also a wholesale indictment of conservatism over the last 30 years. “[T]hose most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying.” “If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted – perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably – your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid.” “Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.” “All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same – as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their ‘opposition’ may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 ‘genders,’ elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, ‘Islamophobia,’ and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them.” “A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most ‘advanced’ Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.” “For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit – and even relish – the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called ‘racist,’ so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi – that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.” “On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination – desperation – not merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?” “Oh, right – there’s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes. Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater ‘diversity.’ The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the ‘conservatives’? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of ‘racism.’ For the latter, this at least makes some sense. No Washington General can take the court – much less cash his check – with that epithet dancing over his head like some Satanic Spirit.” “This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.” “Trump’s vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public opposition on his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths, which should be even more obvious but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults. That the Left would make the campaign all about the latter is to be expected. Why would the Right? Some – a few – are no doubt sincere in their belief that the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump’s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump. But for most of the other NeverTrumpers, is it just a coincidence that they also happen to favor Invade the World, Invite the World?” The answer to the subsidiary question – will it work? – is much less clear. By ‘it’ I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy. We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration, economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored. But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes – and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically. By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working, lower middle, and middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.” “The election of 2016 is a test – in my view, the final test – of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.” I've obviously been sitting on this for awhile. But, if you haven't seen it, here's your chance.  You're welcome.

Some 'son of a bitch'

Son of a bitch cancels meeting after being called 'son of a bitch' Hey There!

Tapper Bitch-Slaps Obamunists

CNN’s Tapper chides Obama “CNN’s Jake Tapper warned President Obama’s former campaign manager and other members of his administration that they appeared politically tone deaf in their mockery of Donald Trump. Blunt exchanges involving Mr. Tapper, Mr. Plouffe, former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, and former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor followed. *Glee*

Harder Harder

Morning Catharsis

Perfect Eric

Today's obamanation

Why it's time to repeal the 2nd Amendment by DAVID S COHEN I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries. Translation: I don't revere the Constitution at all when it doesn't agree with me ... The Second Amendment must be repealed. As much as we have a culture of reverence for the founding generation, it's important to understand that they got it wrong — Weasel words, "culture of reverence." Much more profoundly, the Framers and the Constitution were wildly wrong on race. They enshrined slavery into the Constitution A then necessary compromise, without which there would be no Constitution at all, but you knew that.  The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized. First of all, it wasn't an AR-15 (which, without an auto seer is not even an assault rifle, but a semi auto rifle.)  further demonstrating  your utter ignorance of the issues, let alone the Constitution. Additionally, the Second Amendment was clearly focused on protecting the citizenry from their own government (from you, actually) , which means nothing is off the table if you can afford it. Further more, the Ten Bill of Rights—all of them—focused on protecting us citizenry from the sort of government you are now espousing.  That you and leftist ilk are allowed to "teach the Constitution," is a the real obamanation here.  But you will outlive we who are capable of critical thinking, alas, and your cancer,  that's killing us now will  ...

I'm loving this guy so far

Trump rejects debate with Sanders:  'I will wait to debate the first place finisher'

Rand Paul Bitch Slaps Hillary Rodham

Today's Bitch Slap Rand Paul Auctions off Hillary's book. Well played, Senator Paul. Well played.

COURT TRANSCRIPTS

HOW DO COURT RECORDERS KEEP STRAIGHT FACES? And other legal tips .. These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts (Gifted here)  and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place. ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning? WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?' ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you? WITNESS: My name is Susan! ______________________________ ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact? WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks. ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active? WITNESS: No, I just lie there. ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth? WITNESS: July 18th. ATTORNEY: What year? WITNESS: Every year. _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you? WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which. ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you? WITNESS: Forty-five years. _________________________________ ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory? WITNESS: I forget.. ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot? ___________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam? ________________________________ ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he? WITNESS: He's 20, much like your IQ. ___________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken? WITNESS: Are you (-----)ing me? _________________________________________ ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time? WITNESS: Getting laid ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: She had three children , right? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: How many were boys? WITNESS: None. ATTORNEY: Were there any girls? WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney? ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated? WITNESS: By death.. ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated? WITNESS: Take a guess. ___________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual? WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female? WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male. _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work. ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people? WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight. _________________________________________ ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to? WITNESS: Oral... _________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PM ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time? WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished. ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question? ______________________________________ And last: ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing? WITNESS: No.. ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor? WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

Corporate Ambulance Chasers Bitch Slapped

Supreme Court grants unanimous win for common sense For the Supreme Court to issue a unanimous opinion, legal minds as vastly different as Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, must find agreement, as well as everyone in between. That rarely happens on contentious or unclear issues. Unanimity on the court usually signals that the resulting opinion is a simple application of common sense with which no reasonable person could disagree. This has occurred many times at the Obama administration's expense, but this week the court issued a unanimous opinion that instead puts a key White House ally — the trial lawyer lobby — on the spot. “But this ruling leaves one less justification for lawsuits by people upset they lost money on a stock.” In Omnicare v. Laborers District Council, all nine justices agreed that when shareholders sue a corporation for making false statements of opinion in their filings, they must establish that the statements were knowingly false. This may seem like a minor or obscure matter, but the decision nibbles around the edges of an increasingly lucrative (for trial lawyers) field of lawsuits — those brought by aggrieved shareholders, often as class-action cases, when their stock loses value. In financial markets whose existence depends on everyone's ability to win or to lose money, it isn't hard to understand how enough frivolous lawsuits of this kind could result in disaster. If they become too common, companies will hesitate to go public at all. More to the point, such suits are frequently filed as a nuisance — a form of legal extortion — in the knowledge that most companies would rather settle than fight. In many cases, they are filed by investors as leverage. A shareholder lawsuit can delay large merger and acquisition deals. The companies being sued can be forced to pay out settlements as ransom so that they can move forward with multibillion-dollar deals. [continue] Remember the days when the biggest problem our nation faced were the ATLA ( Association of Trial Lawyers of America,  now called *snort* "American Association for Justice")?  Clap Clap Clap By the by,  we miss Chuck Martel (Chief Barn Army® JAG Corps)

GLUTEN EBOLA

In the Gluten Maximus!

It's been a long time since I posted a South Park clip.  I guess because the only thing I watch on broadcast television are ... erm ... WOW, nothing.  Everything I watch is streaming or TIVO'd. Anyway, I added the Comedy Central app to my iPad, and ran across this, for one.  It's Gluten Free! In my absence SP has actually, somehow, become more profane (wall-to-wall filthy language).  Here's the full episode for them what are not at work, or not around people offended by it, or the truth for that matter.  You're welcome. (or;  http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s18e02-gluten-free-ebola

Attacking Christianity

“ A Christmas Present from the Mainstream Media: Newsweek Takes a Desperate Swipe at the Integrity of the Bible (Part 1) It is not unusual for Newsweek, and other major media magazines, to publish critical opinions of Christianity and the Bible during major Christian holidays. I have lost count of how many March/April issues of such magazines have cast doubt on the resurrection, just in time for Easter. However, the recent Newsweek cover article by Kurt Eichenwald, entitled “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” published intentionally (no doubt) on December 23rd, goes so far beyond the standard polemics, and is so egregiously mistaken about the Bible at so many places, that the magazine should seriously consider a public apology to Christians everywhere. Of course, this is not the first media article critiquing the Bible that has been short on the facts. However, what is stunning about this particular article is that Kurt Eichenwald begins by scolding evangelical Christians for being unaware of the facts about the Bible, and the proceeds to demonstrate a jaw-dropping ignorance of the facts about the Bible. Being ignorant of biblical facts is one thing. But being ignorant of biblical facts after chiding one’s opponent for that very thing is a serious breach of journalistic integrity. Saying Eichenwald’s article is an instance of “the pot calling the kettle black” just doesn’t seem to do it justice. There are a variety of categories where Newsweek needs to give Eichenwald a serious slap on the journalistic wrist. Given the length of the article, I will have to deal with it in two parts. Here are some serious problems with part one: Easy (and False) Caricatures Eichenwald begins (not concludes, but begins!) his article by describing Christians: They wave their Bibles at passersby, screaming their condemnations of homosexuals. They fall on their knees, worshipping at the base of granite monuments to the Ten Commandments while demanding prayer in school. They appeal to God to save America from their political opponents, mostly Democrats. They gather in football stadiums by the thousands to pray for the country’s salvation. So, Eichenwald’s well-balanced journalistic understanding of the Christian religion is limited to street preachers who scream at people, those who demand the 10 commandments be posted in schools, and the tiresome trope that all Christians are part of the Jerry Falwell moral majority? Anyone who has studied evangelical Christianity for more than 10 minutes, using more than internet articles from the Huffington Post, would know that the average believer in America is none of these things. Such stock accusations and caricatures are just low-hanging fruit that are unworthy of serious journalism. Eichenwald should know better. Irresponsible Accusations But, Eichenwald isn’t done. He is not nearly finished expressing his moral outrage against Christianity: When the illiteracy of self-proclaimed Biblical literalists leads parents to banish children from their homes, when it sets neighbor against neighbor, when it engenders hate and condemnation, when it impedes science and undermines intellectual advancement, the topic has become too important for Americans to ignore, whether they are deeply devout or tepidly faithful, believers or atheists. Notice that Eichenwald (still in his introduction) just tosses out these (very serious) accusations and generalizations with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. One wonders whether we are reading a news article or the editorial page. Could a journalist ever get away with such evidence-less accusations if it were made against Islam? Take for instance the charge that Christians are all about “banishing children.” Seriously? If Eichenwald had actually investigated which part of the population is leading the way in adopting children without homes the answer would have been readily available. Evangelicals. Not Muslims. And certainly not liberal media elites. But, even more than just being factually wrong, Eichenwald seems completely unaware that he is engaging in his own moralistic diatribe—the very thing he accuses Christians of doing. Remember, he complains that Christians are like the “Pharisees” always going around telling people they are wrong. Yet now Eichenwald is doing exactly the same thing. Why, then, is he not guilty of the very charge he levelled against Christians, namely “hate and condemnation”? Apparently only Christian moralizing is “hate” whereas Eichenwald’s own moralizing is just fine. Overplaying Transmission Problems Eichenwald attempts to discredit the Bible by pointing out problems in its transmission. However, the real problem is not with the Bible but with Eichenwald’s misinformed accusations. For instance, he claims: About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament. This is patently false. Collections of New Testament writings were functioning as Scripture as early as the second century (and, to some extent, even in the first). For evidence of this, see my book, Canon Revisited. Eichenwald tries again: While there were professional scribes whose lives were dedicated to this grueling work [of copying manuscripts], they did not start copying the letters and testaments about Jesus’s time until centuries after they were written. Prior to that, amateurs handled the job. Again, this is false. There is no evidence that the earliest Christian scribes were amatuers (whatever that means). On the contrary, the earliest evidence suggest Christian scribes were multi-functional scribes who were used to copying all sorts of literature from letters to literary texts and beyond (see chapter 7 of my book The Heresy of Orthodoxy). Eichenwald is misinformed another time: Not all of the amateur copyists spoke the language or were even fully literate. Some copied the script without understanding the words. This is an egregious claim about earliest Christian scribes. There is no evidence that the earliest Christian copyists could be, in any way, characterized as illiterate. Eichenwald may be referring to a reference in the Shepherd of Hermas, a popular second-century text, where an individual was asked to copy a book who could not read. However, there is no indication that this individual was a scribe, nor that this was typical for scribes! Again, another mistake: But in the past 100 years or so, tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered, dating back centuries. This is absolutely false. The number of NT manuscripts is a little more than 5,500 (and still growing), but not 10,000. In addition, Eichenwald mentions the high number of manuscripts as if it were a negative! Truth is that the more manuscripts we possess, the more certain we can be about the integrity of the NT text. Moreover, Eichenwald never mentions (or perhaps doesn’t know) that the NT is in a class by itself when it comes to the number of manuscripts. Most other ancient texts from the first century (or thereabouts) are preserved in around 10-20 manuscripts (and some only in a single manuscript). Thus, the 5,500 NT manuscripts of the NT is impressive indeed. Overplaying Textual Variations In an effort to shock the reader, Eichenwald appeals to two significant textual variations in the NT ... [Continued] So you're in high school.  The girl seated next to you is so ugly she could eat corn through a picket fence.  But she's nice, and doesn't mind that you look at her chemistry test answers.  You don't insult her, you don't make fun of her; you simply don't give a shit.  If you did make a habit of acting like that, your friends would wonder about your obsession with her.  Maybe suspect that she secretly gives you a boner.  See what I'm saying? To atheists, religion is a non starter.  They're respectful, but no way do they ask her to dance. They don't care. So what's going on?  Christianity is anathema to the Statist.  Lenin, and Hitler acted accordingly.  So there's that. I object to Newsweak being labeled 'mainstream media." Like MSNBC, Newsweak is a niche market enterprise trolling for the audience of disaffected leftists, global warmists, professional homosexual activists, race-baiters, vegan religionists,  communists, and other of the addle pated jobbernowls who plague society.  The bottom line is they are all liars who depend on this buttressing from other liars for exculpation that keep them from brainal implosion.  I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it in silence anymore.  I will turn my cheeks to them. ”

Russell Simmons and Ilkette

Russell Simmons: America Has Not Seen Protests Like Those That Are Coming if Justice Doesn't Start to Come Down We have a list of demands So there's that ... And now, this Fox News Reporter Stumps NYC Protester Back to you Simmons