Tuesday, May 2, 2017


"... And none can hold our power 
to account ..."

~ Shakespeare - Macbeth

Still ridin' high. Why?

Apparently, Shakespeare is right yet again, but 

WHY SHOULD IT BE SO?

WHY have their names dropped out
 of the news?

Can you even remember WHY we ought to be concerned about them?

WBERE do you supposed they'd be today,
 if they were members of the GOP?

Can you even NAME them?



Could THIS be the ANSWER?




105 comments:

  1. There’s a special kind of irony in Trump saying that Jackson who was a slave owner himself might have stopped the Civil War had he lived longer. As president, Jackson ordered the Post Office to block the distribution of abolitionist pamphlets in the South. When I spoke to J.M. Opal, a historian and author of a new and well-reviewed history of Jackson’s influence on America, he told me that Jackson was “the first president to have no qualms whatsoever about slavery.” In essence, Trump is claiming that an avowed pro-slavery president would have somehow stopped a war caused by growing opposition to owning human beings.

    Trump is a special kind of moron, a moron who was elevated to the highest honor in America by millions of other morons, but not by a majority of Americans, only the dumbasses. A majority of Americans rejected the Supreme Moron.

    Trump is obviously not well educated or intelligent. Sad but true that most of his followers aren't either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is YOU who is not well-educated or intelligent, Twinkie.

      If you were, you would have known –– or at least had the decency to acknowledge –– that President Trump's observation about Andrew Jackson, –– who was in fact the FIRST president who could truly be called "The PEOPLE's CHOICE," and the first DEMOCRAT to hold the office by the way ––, was not meant to PRAISE the ruthless, ignoble ruffian Jackson, but to CRITICISE him for being the vulgar, cruel. brutal, sadistic BUMPKIN he was.

      This, of course, is the way "you people" constantly use selected "FACTS" or FACTOIDS to promote LIES, DISTORTIONS and WICKEDLY TENDENTIOUS FABRICATIONS.

      Normally we would DELETE a post such as yours for being unrelated to the topic or theme set for the day, but it gave us such a fine opportunity to EXPOSE and DENOUNCE the BASE HYPOCRISY, CRAFT and GUILE with which people of your wretched ilk generally operate we thought it best NOT to miss taking advantahe the opportunity you so kindly afforded us.

      Thank you for making yourself such an easy mark.

      Delete
    2. ALSO: There is a BIG difference between admiring the EFFICACY of methods used by admitted fiends and villains to motivate the masses, and admiring the USE to which that efficacy was put.

      In other words, while the MEANS may not justify the ENDS, the degree to which those means proved EFFECTIVE may in fact be proiseworthy.

      Like FIRE, WATER, GUNPOWDER, INTELLIGENCE, FOOD, SEX, LITERACY, and ATOMIC ENERGY none is intrinsically "good." Their VALUE depends entirely on the USES to which these resources are put.

      Delete
  2. Why? Because its one big cartel up there in the District of Criminals, and they are in bed with the international banksters and global corporations.

    All that silly Democrat and Republican stuff is just kabuki for the grubby proles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Twould seem so, Alack and Alas!

      But tell us, do you think President Trump is as venal, insincere and stupidly short-sighted as the rest? If so, was he ALWAYS, or has he merely been dragged down into The Swamp he vowed to drain, and effectively drowned there, –– as so many well-meaning neophytes have before him?

      Do you believe there are any exceptions to the "rule" you allege?

      If so, who might be counted among the decent, altruistic, fair-minded, and genuinely patriotic?

      Do you agree with the fellow [it may have been Mencken] who said, "There is no way one could possibly underestimate the intelligence of the American public?"

      Delete
    2. I believe you would have been fascinated by the DEBATE staged last night on C-Span between the estimable Scot, NIALL FERGUSON, and CNN's darling advocate of globalism FAREED ZECHARIA.

      I'm a great can of Niall Ferguson who finds Fareed Zacharia (sp?) more than bit hard to take. Ferguson virtually mopped the floor up with Zachariah, although the pompous little twerp's cocky demeanor and booming voice made him appear unfazed by the drubbing he received. [His sort always appear blissfully unaware they have faults that could be exposed and denounced so conceited and enamored of their imginary self-importance are they.]

      Delete


    3. Niall Campbell Ferguson (first name pronounced NEAL) was born 18 April 1964). He is a Scottish historian.

      He is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is also a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and visiting professor at the New College of the Humanities.

      He writes and speaks about international history, economic and financial history, and British and American imperialism.

      He is known for his provocative, contrarian views.

      Ferguson's books include Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World and Civilization: The West and the Rest, all of which he has presented as Channel 4 television series.

      In 2004, he was named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine. In previous years, he has been a contributing editor for Bloomberg Television, and a columnist for Newsweek.

      Ferguson was an advisor to John McCain's U.S. presidential campaign in 2008, supported Mitt Romney in 2012, and has been a vocal critic of Barack Obama.

      Ferguson received the Ludwig Erhard Prize for Economic Journalism in 2013. ...


      The rest of the article apealrs in WIKIPEDIA under Niall Ferguson.

      Delete
    4. I can't stand that bug-eyed bastard, Zacharia.

      I believe almost all pols are venal and insincere, but they are not short-sighted, they just have a different target in mind.

      Trump is not a conservative nor is he an ideologue. I think he is quickly finding out a president needs a power base. He can't just stand along and attack everybody.

      His administration will end up being indistinguishable from Bill Clinton's (minus the cigar kink).

      Delete
    5. I think it's MUCH too early to abandon hope President Trump may yet fulfill most of his major promises. That First 100 Days Guidepost is nonsense ginned up by the ENEMEDIA.

      A reported 96% of those who voted for him would STILL support him, and he would now enjoy a GREATER MARGIN of VICTORY if he ran again against Her Heinous right now. As yiu know, I deplore a Defeatist Attitude, even if some would prefer to characterize it as harfd-headed realism.

      He has already accomplished a Great Deal most of it entirely unsung and barely even NOICED by the ENEMEDIA. That he has managed to do this with a Full Court Press marshalled against him comprising the ENEMEDIA, the United Nations, the Democrats, the Professoriat, and MOST of the leading members of his OWN Party speaks volumes in Mr. Trump's favor.


      I think even an unusally aware, well-informed person such as yourself may not be fully aware of the UBIQUITY and IMMENSE POWER of the ENEMEDIA. Much of their septic influence is subliminal and reaches us in subtle, underhanded ways few-if-any could imagine. NO ONE is fully IMMUNE to their toxic cant and withering worldview.

      By the way I disagree with what you've said elsewhere about The WALL. It was one of his MAJOR themes that got him elected and MUST, therefore, be constructed, –– whether it will do the job intended or not. I'd advose you and others not to take everything QUITE so LITERALLY.

      A Wall is a BARRIER designed to protect the sanctity of Private Property. ANY means of accomplishing this be they electronic, beefed up surveillance, heavily armed patrols in problem areas with an order to SHOOT ALIEN INVADERS on SIGHT, if they fail to HALT and TURN BACK, or the use of DRONES to discourage trespass should be acceptable. HOWEVER, an actual PHYSICAL WALL should be the BASIS for the defense of our borders. If nothing else, it has great SYMBOLIC VALUE that tells the world WE MEAN BUSINESS.


      And MEXICO and other countries South of the Border WILL end up paying for the Wall, if President Trump gets his way renegotiating NAFTA thereby minimizing our ENORMOUS TRADE DEFICIT. I'm sure he has other aces up his sleeve as well.

      Delete
    6. "I'd advise you and others not to take everything QUITE so LITERALLY."

      Yes. We agree, which is why I stated a Great Wall of China will never be built. I've been down on the border.

      Barriers, beefed up security, drones, sensors, etc.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I happen to KNOW BlueBull, who is a personal friend of mine.

      You are NOT BlueBull.

      We deplore imposture here, and WILL NOT TOLERATE those who practice it.

      Delete
  4. _____________________ NOTICE ____________________

    I have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in what ANYONE from any LEFTIST BLOG or any RIVAL CONSERVATIVE BLOGhas to say about ME or anyone ELSE whose commentary I welcome here.

    I am militantly opposed to GOSSIP, and WILL NOT TOLERATE personal remarks intended to hurt, inflame, defame or intimidate ANYONE in the blogosphere.

    NO ONE LOVES a TATTLETALE, and EVERYONE SHOULD DESPISE and REJECT TROUBLEMAKERS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Please talk to us about the TOPIC, Charlette, and we'll be glad to listen, ––– whether we agree or not, –– I promise. ;-)

      The rest of it is OFF LIMITS here. Please respect our guidelines.

      Delete
  5. The WikiLeaks emails of John Podesta could/would and should have been enough to have him investigated and charged as a main participant in the pedophile/Pizzagate crimes. But apparently NOT SO. WHY?

    Has anyone ever seen such a united front working together to sanitize the criminality, deny it all and point the finger of guilt right back at those that looked at the evidence released in the emails and concluded that, that yes these are criminally evil people.

    Powerful politically connected people are able to control the narrative in the media. What agency is so powerful to exert this much influence upon the media? One agency definitely involved in "salting" the media over its life since it was created in 1947 is, of course, the CIA. It's an agency that has been involved in the worst crimes ever perpetrated upon mankind.

    Can anybody think of a more nefarious agency, one directed for several years by John Brennan, a CIA agent, placed in Saud Arabia who had the temerity to convert to radical Wahhabi Islam while stationed there? Is such a man one that should be directing the CIA in its operations supposedly against Islamic terrorism?

    I guess these are dangerous questions if asked by a journalist. Are all journalists in America too much gutless whores to speak out about the problem? ANSWER: None are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The Podesta brothers - John and Tony - are creepy.

    Most recently, John was the Clinton campaign's chairman, but he has worked with Bill and Obama too. Tony is considered one of Washington's most powerful lobbyists. (For more on their political background, see Abby Martin's recent Empire Files on teleSUR.)

    Not knowing much about them - aside from the fact that Podesta is interested in UFOs - the first ping on my radar was the "spirit cooking" revelation from the leaked Podesta emails.The relevant email suggests that not only are Tony and John close enough to Crowleyite "magickian" and "artist" Marina Abramovic to be on a first-name basis with her, but also that they are familiar enough with her "spirit cooking" to know what that involves and presumably be fine with attending a session. The casual tone sounds as if the planned "dinner" was probably not their first. (See: Sickos: Wikileaks reveals Podesta bros participate in disturbing, occult-themed "spirit cooking" involving copious bodily fluids?)

    Since the release of Podesta's emails, users on sites like 4chan, Twitter, Reddit and YouTube, among other blogs and forums, have been uncovering a ton of strange connections, creepy implications, and perhaps outlandish speculations about the brothers and their circle of friends. For example, see this compilation of info by "ausbitbank" on steemit. There's a ton of other stuff out there, so knock yourself out searching and combing through it all. There's a ton of speculations and unsourced assertions on the topic, but there are also some genuinely creepy people and connections involved. Here I'll present just the facts. Let's start with Tony.

    On July 16, 2015, Politico published a photo essay "inside Hillary's campaign headquarters" that featured an image of John's office. On the wall is a painting, on loan from his brother Tony, that features a suited man lying on a table, with two men standing over him. The visual suggestion - given the plates and cutlery held by the two - are that they are preparing to eat him."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Podesta LOOKS like a creepy villain from a cheap horror movie. His face has always frightened me a bit, –– no one I'd ever want bump into in a dark alley BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! –– and I'm no lily. ;-)

      Delete
    2. Podesta might cook your spirit if you get too close to him.

      Delete
    3. He DOES look like a GHOUL. That was the word I was trying to think of a few moments ago. His complexion looks unhealthy in the extreme.

      So you think he'd want to make GHOULASH out of me? };^)>

      He also remids me of NOSFERATU –– the early silent Dracula classic.

      A few years ago some JDL-AIPAC obsessive-compulsive paranoid professional VICTIM type was pushing the idea that Dracula was anti-Semitic!

      What next? King Kong? Godzilla? Rosemary's Baby's Father?

      Delete
    4. I did scan the article, Waylon. and also the decidedly eerie illustrations. While offering no proof of any actual malfeasance, the artwork certainly betrays an inordinate amount of BAD TASTE, if nothing else.

      The brothers also have BAD TEETH –– grayish, too small and too widely spaced–– a sign of bad genes, and possibly poor dental hygiene. Whether it's true or not, both look as though they must have terrible halitosis.

      Also, the sharp, angular bone sructure of their faces gives their features a predatory, nightmarish, VULPINE appearance, which ought to be enough to strike terror into the hearts of small children.

      UNSAVORY is the kindest term I could imagine to descrive the Podestas.

      Of course, none of this is enough to warrant any sort of legal proceeding against them more's the pity.

      Delete
    5. Maybe you aright and there is nothing to do but just 'move along because there's nothing to see here'.

      But on the other hand just from the released WikiLeaks emails of John Podesta the minimum requirement would be a thorough investigation into what this is all about. And I mean a criminal investigation. Since this is unlikely to happen, can we conclude this is so widespread and opposition so deep that it would require taking on the whole Washington political establishment. So the pretense can continue as long as they hold all the power and cards.

      This is a subject that would set Trump apart from those despicable enemies. But maybe he's got something to hide regarding this as well.

      Delete
    6. I may not have learnt much in my 76 years, Waylon, but I have come to understand that it's better not to let myself get overly concerned about things I can't do anything to change.

      THAT, of course, is the mental disorder that fuels the fires of LEFTIST bitterness, anguish, iconoclasm, and incessant denigration expressed in terms of contempt, accusation and vituperation.

      NONE of that helps or heals ANYTHING or ANYONE, so, while I agree it's important to be aware of evil, it's better to eschew it lest, as you indicate, it "cooks" your soul.

      Delete
    7. FT, I don't know if you watched an interview on FoXNews in which Megan "Smelly" Kelly spent much time interviewing the Washington pizza king, James Alefontes. But I just came across an interesting and thorough analyses of the interview and gets into discussing and showing some inside information of a specific pizza shop in Washington before all this blew onto the scene. The picture painted is quite different than that portrayed on the Kelly interview.

      And does indicate that there's much more to this than the MSM pretends.

      Megan "Smelly" Kelly a little farewell to FNC

      Delete
  7. Kim Jong Un too young and stupid to be someone to reason with, yet you can’t say that he’s unworthy of the attention of an American President
    Back in the days of Bill Clinton in 1994, he once said that North Korea would someday possess the greatest military threat possible, and they may even have nuclear weapons some day. And during the Obama administration, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to North Korea and she was told that they would cease their testing of nuclear weapons…Well their word is as good a the word was from the Ayatollah of Iran who told Obama, and Hillary the exact same load of Bull.
    But that was then, and now is now, and now North Korea has 20,000 artillery weapons medium-range missiles, 70 submarines, 400 missile boats and 563 combat aircraft, and an estimated one and a half million man army thanks to their friendships with China and Russia..
    And thanks to the combination of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama…North Korea also has 10 plutonium-based nuclear warheads and a developing delivery system that while not capable enough this time to reach our West coast they are certainly sufficient enough to reach their neighbors like Japan, and South Korea.
    The question is, how can or if Kim Jong Un be stopped?..Kim dong will not back down. It is just not in his nature. He’s cuckoo and because of his nuclear weapons, he believes that he is invincible

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WHERE did you get those figures? I'm not tryung to say you're wrong, but if you give no sources to support your assertions, how could you expect anyone take them seriously?

      Delete
    2. I love the CoT just skips right over the 8 Bush years! LOL!

      JMJ

      Delete
  8. THE TOWN CRIER said

    Wall Street Journal: Democrats Trying
    to Squelch Susan Rice Unmasking Story


    Breitbart Big Government, by Kristina Wong

    The Wall Street Journal in an editorial over the weekend said Democrats are trying to squelch the story of Susan Rice’s unmasking of Trump campaign officials, and the House and Intelligence committees should investigate the former national security adviser. “The House and Senate Intelligence committees should investigate what she did and why,” the Wall Street Journal argued in an April 28 piece. Last month, blogger Mike Cernovich and other news outlets reported that Rice had unmasked, or identified the names, of Trump campaign officials caught up during surveillance of a foreign target. The piece said Democrats raised a fuss ...

    ReplyDelete
  9. FreeThinke,

    I have not given up hope. Justice Gorsuch alone makes President Trump worthwhile.

    I was hoping he would be disruptive, and he is to some extent, but I underestimated The Establishment's ability to stay on their feet and keep from puking when someone rocks the boat too hard.

    President Trump will settle in and be a centrist presidency, ala Bill Clinton. No way will he be an arch-conservative; he has already brought on too many Democrats. Ivanka and Jared are both New York Dems, and they have more influence over him than all others combined.

    I'm not being negative. That's just the way it is, and it's still better than Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not sure why we'd be concerned with John Podesta and Susan Rice at the moment...

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's always the nefarious characters behind the scenes you really gotta watch out for.

      Delete
    2. Susan Rice is the one who "outed" Republicans (by NAME) in FISA intercepts. She's the Security leak.

      Delete
    3. The leak?

      The leak, apparently, was from the White House to a prototypically inept GOP committee head, who has since had to recuse himself from the investigation into the matter, the matter being allegations of illegal Russian tampering in the last election. Susan Rice unmasking the names of US contacts with people under FISA surveillance makes perfect sense. That would be her doing her job. It would be curiosity, something lacking in too many Americans these days. That you do not understand any of this, or think somehow Rice would have been doing just a fine job ignoring these US contacts with foreigners under surveillance, shows either a complete lack of curiosity, or complete blind devotion to your partisanship.

      JMJ

      Delete
    4. The Russians...


      Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

      Delete
    5. btw - Are you buying Huma's Wiener defense?

      Had it been naked pictures of underage girls, she'd be serving 100 years at Leavenworth.

      Delete
    6. Jersey, this nonsense sbiut Russian infuence on the outcome of our presidential election is nothing but a RUSE –– a gigantic, frankly putrid RED HERRING –– designed by Democrats, and possibly RINOS, to DISTRACT the American Public from the reality of Mr. Trump's remarkable triumph and the painful embarrassment of Mme. Clinton's abysmal failure to win the confidence of the electorate.

      Delete
    7. "Honey, would you mind printing out a few more of theses TOP SECRET satellite photos? Hillary needs them and there's no classified data processing equipment at Sandy Berger's end..."

      Delete
    8. Also, Jersey, it is ILLEGAL to reveal the identity of Amerian citizens inadvertently involved with targeted foreign nationals. PERIOD!

      It should be painfully obvious –– even to someone with your leftist orientation –– that Ms. Rice –– a pretty, well-educated, cultivated woman, but hired, partisan HACK all the same –– did what she did for purely POLITICAL motives, which makes her actions STRICTLY illegal.

      The TIMING makes the motivation patently obvious.

      I'm STILL smarting over the BUM RAP that took Mike Flynn –– a great American with a long honoable career of military service to his credit –– OUT of the Trump administration. If that was not a crime, by GOD it KUGHT to be!

      Delete
    9. FT, what Rice did was not illegal, she sought and obtained the information legally. Also, I am not saying anything about my opinion of the Russians in any of this, or about the investigations. I am simply pointing out reality. But Flynn? Let's say we have very different assessments of the man. ;)

      FJ - I caught a little of the hearing when they were asking Comey about that. He just flatly asserted there was no criminal intent or anything felony-worthy. Personally, I don't care. These people are no longer in any power.

      JMJ

      Delete
    10. Yes, it's all legal Jersey. But before Obama, it wasn't considered "right".

      Delete
    11. JC, if Americans working in a Presidential campaign were communicating with foreign actors under FISA surveillance, I'd want to know who they are. You apparently would not. That's the main difference between the common conservative and people with high IQ's - curiosity.

      JMJ

      Delete
    12. I'm not sure why we'd be concerned with John Podesta and Susan Rice at the moment...

      ___

      Just a passing though but perhaps when there is sufficient evidence of criminal behavior in high places it might behoove us to look carefully at what the hell is going on, no?

      Delete
    13. What's the criminal behavior, Waylon?

      JMJ

      Delete
    14. I think that was covered very well above, including the difference of what is legal versus what is right.

      Delete
    15. Where was it covered above? What is the difference here?

      JMJ

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...so what you're really saying is... :P

      Delete
    2. How many tmes do I have to say WE WILL NOT TOLERATE VERBAL ABUSE aka VITUPERATION, mindless VINDICTIVENESS, WITLESS, BASELESS DENIGRATION, or what_I-am-pleased-to-call LYING WITH FACTS?

      And, FJ, I don't think the snotty pratings of that pathetic, purse-lipped, perfumed, little pansy are the LEAST BIT amusing.

      Delete
    3. They may not be "amusing", but there's an element of truth in his criticism which really is likely to lead to Trump's ultimate downfall, the urge to be "popular".

      Delete
    4. Will Trump succumb to the appeal...

      I suspect it's already happening.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, FJ, but "SNIDE" is not my style. The petulant pansy may be correct, if we look at what he's saying from certain angles, but I am morally certain from his TONE that his purpose is NOT to inform or enlighten. His aim is no higher than any other attempt to bring down the mighty through arrant, pitiless ridiule –– an insouciant display of DISRESPECT –– and a malevolent DESIRE to WOUND.

      Trust me, I'm too well acquainted with his type.

      And doesn't he remind you of a certain decidedly foul fowl who has made it his business to bedevil us for at least two decades?

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have affected a COUNTERFEIT identity – and a poor one at that. Also, your remarks fell under the heading of WITLESS DEROGATION.

      Buh bye!

      Delete
  13. In regard to Steven Colbert, this idiot should be off the air, but we know there are millions of people who think like him. America is at a crossroads. Either we give in to the vile, disgusting left or we take our country back. If you don't like America you may feel free to leave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just watch, I'll bet that there will be no apology; no boycott of HIS sponsors; no repercussions whatsoever. The 'ol double standard will be on full display. I for one never watched this pathetic loser. Never thought his stupid joke were funny.

      Delete
    2. LOL! I just read the transcript. Oh man, Colbert just completely ripped the President! That was funny! That was like an old school Don Rickles take-down!

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. It was a rage-filled, petulant rant. I'm surprised ColdBert didn't bust a vessel

      Delete
    4. I did not see the program, and wouldn't bother to read about it. This is TRASH –– utterly trivial, and not worth any sensible person's time.

      Our entire Popular Culture is TRASH, and THAT is the root of most of our troubles. We are in grave danger of losing our splendid heritage once and for all, because of the DELIBERATE, RUTHLESS, POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED POLLUTION of our JUDGMENT and the TRIVIALIZATION of our AIMS and AMBITIONS by evil geniuses like the late Eddie Bernays and myriad others of that ilk including the granddaddies of it all Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud.

      Because of these pernicious influences even our HOPES and DREAMS today are of poor quality. Most of us are preoccupied with utter NONSENSE.


      As the twig is bent, so grows the tree."

      Delete
    5. Oh, I thought Colbert was brilliant. For years he owned satire with that way-over-the-top Bill O'Reilly-esque character. Overall as a performer, he's the most talented, and smartest, of the late night hosts, but he has the narrowest audience, demographically. All said, I think he would have been just as big a star 50-75 years ago as he is today. Same with Seth MacFarlane. These are satirists who can and do work on any level.

      JMJ

      Delete
    6. OH Really! And if a comedian had savaged the black messiah in the same way? You would be all for it, right?

      Delete
    7. He goes where the joke are, LOM. He goes where the jokes are...

      JMJ

      Delete
    8. Tarbash TardbashiMay 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM

      Colbert is a rage-filled little man, which is sadly all to common on the left today.

      Delete
    9. The POINT is that Colbert, like him or not, is a PUBLIC FIGURE taking ot shots at OTHER Public Figures, and as such Colbert the right to be as distasteful, scornful and unkind as he likes IS protected under the First Amendment.

      And that is why I militantly opposed to HATE SPEECH Laws and the criminalizatiin of statements unflattering to or condemnatory of JEWS.

      Delete
    10. LOL! You ought to catch more Seth MacFarlane! If such was criminalized, he'd have been in prison years ago! He's been criticized for it, but if a joke is funny, it's funny. If it's just dumbly mean-spirited it's well... Joking about Jews, good jokes and bad, and other ethnic groups is commonplace today. No one is going to prison over it. "Hate Speech" is a superfluous, and frankly corny, term. I wish people would say what they mean. "Inciting violence" or "inciting criminal behavior" would be the already established and necessary terminology.

      JMJ

      Delete
    11. Jersey, I'm sure it's a generational thing, but many of the things you find funny are NO Laughing Matter.

      Our society has lost ALL snese of Dignity, Propreity, Good Taste, and Good Decorum. Apparently, that does not faze you in the least, but it bothers the hell out of me.

      Delete
    12. There is a genuine and cultured, though certainly unpretentious, intellegencia in America. It's alive and well - the Twain Tradition is still out there. I think you are lamenting something else - a particular culture that is sadly disappearing - the cultured wealthy and powerful. The new money these days is in the hands of slobs.

      JMJ

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. How in the world did America ever elect Barack Obama to the presidency?

    To be fair, we didn’t know a lot about the man prior to 2008 (which in and of itself should have made him unelectable).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PLENTY of credible, irrefutable evidence against him was published before the 2008 election, BUT the ENEMEDIA either ignored it, soft-pedaled it, or pointed accusatory fngers at those who tried to warn us about Obama's background and true nature.

      ALSO:

      "The partisan when engaged in dispute cares nothing for the rights and wrongs involved, but only about winning by any means fair or foul."

      ~ One of the ancient Greek Philsophers roughly paraphrased.

      Delete
  17. People like Colbert & Madona set the example of vile behavior & the youth who think it's acceptable to mimic this kind of behavior in public. They don't understand the issues or the implications of what they're parroting, just that it's "hip".
    No wonder they act the way they do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Ms. P. You said exactly what I said just above albeit more simply and directly in different words.

      Delete
  18. There are many countries where a comedian would be arrested and shot for what Stephen Colbert said about the President.

    At the very least, he should be fired.

    Any comedian who had said this about President Obama would have already lost his job.

    It's bad enough liberals kill babies and advocate for the legalization of pedophilia, but now they're doing this too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The POINT, Sal, is that Colbert, like him or not, is a PUBLIC FIGURE taking ot shots at OTHER Public Figures, and as such Colbert the right to be as distasteful, scornful and unkind as he likes IS protected under the First Amendment.

      And that is why I am militantly opposed to Political Correctness, which gaves us HATE SPEECH Laws and the criminalization, and complete BLACKOUT in all public venues of statements unflattering to or condemnatory of JEWS.

      Delete
    2. I kill babies and advocate pedophilia?!?!?! SOMEBODY STOP ME!!! :|

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. Oh we know full well what a monster you are, Jersey, but somehow we love you anyway.

      Ain't it weird? };^)>

      Delete
  19. Jack's son AndrewMay 3, 2017 at 11:48 PM

    Nugent was just invited to Trump's White House. His sort of "hip" behavior was heard by young people too.

    1. Nugent On Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton: "You Probably Can't Use The Term 'Toxic Cunt' In Your Magazine, But That's What She Is."

    2. Nugent: "Piece Of Shit" Obama Should "Suck On My Machine Gun."

    3 Nugent described President Obama as a "subhuman mongrel."

    Ann Coulter: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

    Little bit of a double standard you got going here. Clean up your own house before you complain about what's in other people's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tarbash TardbashiMay 4, 2017 at 7:18 AM

      1. Mr. FreeThinke dislikes Ted Nugent, his style and his music

      2. This blog post is not about the subject to which you refer.

      So, by your standard, if there is any bad behavior on the right, no one on the right can complain about bad behavior on the left? and vice versa?

      You leftwing loonies are brain-baked morons.

      Why don't you shut up and stop bothering people.

      Delete
    2. Mr.Tardbashi is correct, HOWEVER:

      The POINT is that Mr. Colbert and Mr. Njgent, –– like them or not ––,are PUBLIC FIGURES taking ot shots at OTHER Public Figures, and as such their right to be as vulgar, distasteful, scornful and unkind as they like IS protected under the First Amendment.

      And that is why I am militantly opposed to Political Correctness, which gaves us HATE SPEECH Laws and the criminalization, and complete BLACKOUT in all public venues of statements unflattering to or condemnatory of JEWS.


      On the other hand, THIS is a PRIVATE BLOG run by a PRIVATE citizen, and as such I, FT, The Great and Terrible –– and ALL blog owners –– have the right to exercise ANY editorial policy WE prefer, which is why I normally exclude or delete comments that do not adhere to our well-publicized rules and guidelines.

      Delete
    3. And Hillary Clinton most certainy IS a "TOXIC CUNT," if ever there was one. I've said as much, myself dring the campaign.

      "The Truth, my dears, is NOT Hate Speech."

      Delete
  20. OH Really! And if a comedian had savaged the black messiah in the same way? You would be all for it, right?

    ReplyDelete
  21. American discourse and politics have definitely taken a nosedive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That depends, as it always has, entirely on Who and What you choose to believe, read, watch, or audit, and of course how well YOU uphold the standards by which you would have others abide.

      Aiming critical quips , tauntsand jibes at those YOU don't like or admire does NOT automatically confer SAINTHOOD –– or even intellectual INTEGRITY –– upon YOU.

      ];^}>

      Delete

  22. As for yesterday's FBI Director Comey's hearing ....Fear not, Hillary, Obama defenders, no harm will come to Hillary Obama, Susan Rice, or any other of the Obama loyalists who committed Felony Espionage by illegally leaking all that information. They will all get way and go "scott-free " as Comey, did with Hillary, they all will claim they did not KNOW they were breaking the law so it's ok all will be good!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's called REALPOLITIK, LOM.

      It might take a bloody REVOLUTION to do anything meaningful to change it, and then we'd have to ask ourselves, "WOULD IT BE WORTH THAT MUCH SACRIFICE to pursue a relatively petty Point of Law effecting an already DEPOSED, DISCREDITED –– and frankly PATHETIC PUBLIC FIGURE?

      In my opinion there are much, much MUCH bigger fish to fry. BORDER SECURITY, MEDICAL CARE, ISLAM, and the ECONOMY spring instantly to mind.

      Delete
  23. Here’s my Problem, color me confused, but why Hillary and her liberal sycophant followers/supporters are the worst kinds of sore losers. They always feel they’re entitled to what they want and it is never their fault when things do not go their way."

    Well, so much for the Mainstream Media and Hollywood. The Hillary-bots supporters reactions are even worse!
    Yes they have every right to be unhappy and Yes, they do have the right to protest, it is a free country.. But these are not protests, these are "riots", to which they have no right!
    And in defense of a free country the next a Democrat that gets elected President ( and I hope that won’t be for a VERY long time) they can look forward to being called some interesting things over their four years!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True enough, Shakespeare, but also painfully obvious, so why rail on and on about it, when those of us who are aware SHOULD be getting our heads together in the attempt to effect MEANINGFUL, CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGE in public policy?

      Delete
  24. Two hundred and forty years ago, George Washington and his troops took on the largest army in the world, fighting for the noble cause of liberty and independence.

    Today, the “battle of our times” is a battle to give Men the Right to Dress up as a Woman and Pee in the Girl’s Bathroom.

    Yes, we certainly have come a long way.

    In 2016 America it’s no longer acceptable to use basic science and biology to determine whether someone is a ‘he’ or a ‘she.’ The genitalia that you are born with is no longer a factor; instead, who you are — or what you are, for that matter — is now based on how you feel on the inside. If you feel like a girl then you are a girl, if you feel like a boy then you are a boy, and if you feel like a squirrel then you’re a squirrel. Definitions are completely blown out the window, and as a result, society as a whole is becoming less and less structured.

    But to the progressive left, things like definition and societal structure are completely irrelevant. They have reached the lowest level imaginable Transgender bathroom laws are the left-wings top agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An EXAGGEATED, DISTORTED, OVERLY-SIMPLISTIC, purely PARTISAN analysis of a SENSITIVE,–– though-decidedly MARGINAL ––, ISSUE.

      No man has the right, or enough knowledge, to judge another, until he's walked a mile in that other man's moccassins."

      ~ Old Indian Proverb

      Delete
  25. Replies
    1. THANK YOU, AOW, for bringing up what SHOULD be an issue of CENTRAL CONCERN to this thread.

      I've been "out" all day, but had read that headline, and heard news reports about Ms. Rice's refusal to testify. All I could think then –– and now –– was "HOW the HELL COULD SHE GET AWAY WITH IT?"

      She has the right, like everyine else, to take the Fifth Amendment, but does ANYONE have a "right" effectively to THUMB HER NOSE at an official Congressional Court of Inquiry?

      Delete
    2. FT,
      "HOW the HELL COULD SHE [Susan Rice] GET AWAY WITH IT?"

      Because...

      1. She's a member of the political oligarchy -- as were many in the Obama administration.

      2. She's black.

      She should be forced to appear before Congress.

      Let her take the Fifth. Taking the Fifth is an admission of guilt, isn't it?

      Delete
    3. Anyone can thumb their nose at an official court of inquiry. As individuals they can refuse to appear and be grilled by those they believe to be idiots.

      Decisions made always have consequences. Unlawful responses to any situation usually results in legal action being taken.

      Is what Rice did illegal?

      Delete
    4. Is what Rice did illegal?

      I think so -- once all the facts come out. If they come out. Why otherwise would she want to avoid answering a Congressional investigative committee's questions? Something ain't above board. Period.

      Delete
    5. As I believe I indicated above, OBTAINING informatiin on American citizens inadvertently caught in a web of foreign intrigue is lawful in and of itself, because the information was obtained INCIDENTALLY or UNINTENTIONALLY by ACCIDENT.

      Ergo, simply HAVING said information could not possibly be illegal, BUT deliberately sharing it with others in order to do political damage to one's opponents IS NOT PERMITTED. In fact it's categorized as FELONY.

      The problem is that in order to prosecute a figure in Ms. Rice's position for malfeasance under the law one must be able to PROVE malicious INTENT.

      I don't believe MIND READING constitutes admissible evidence in a Court of Law ––– unless, of course, one is trying to prosecute a REPUBLICAN. (;^x

      Delete
    6. Piotr Platypusovich said

      HEAR! HEAR! FT's GOT IT.

      Delete
  26. So, by James Comey’s admission there was NO doubt that there was classified information on Huma Abedin’s computer and forwarded to and in possession of Abedin’s perverted, disgraced, and soon to be indited as a Child pornography criminal husband Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner.
    And if that is true, and it was confirmed by the Director of the FBI, then how is it that Huma Abedin has not been charged with having classified information in her possession, ( as far as I am aware, Humer is NOT cleared for having possession of such material) and then forwarded it after leaving her duties at the State Department?
    James Comey said that Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin was not criminally charged even though she sent classified emails to her estranged husband Anthony Weiner, and I would like to know why!

    Also how is it that Anthony Weiner has not been charged with having classified information in his possession?
    And MOST importantly, how is it that Hillary Clinton has not been charged with allowing Huma Abedin to have access to classified information?
    Lindsey Graham had asked Mr. Comey “Do you agree with me that Anthony Weiner should not have access to classified information?”.
    And Director Comey answered “Yes. That’s a fair statement”
    Then my question is still... WHY shouldn’t they all be prosecuted?
    Why Wasn't both Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin charged for criminally mishandling of classified material? This is beyond belief! Is it more important to investigate the Idiotic accusation of Donald Trump's Golden Shower.? I’m not even going to try to offer a joke about that stupid bit of Fake News!
    Just look how many people were "Above the Law," in Hillary's camp, and I didn’t even mention Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Donna Brazile, and Barack Obama.. so far, nobody in the Obama/Clinton Crime Family has been indicted and made to pay for their corruption and law breaking!
    And the Progressives are Pissed off about Donald Trump? Give me a break!

    ReplyDelete
  27. So Barack Obama endorses Macron over Donald Trumps -favored Le Pen in the French Presidential race!
    Has there ever been any serious study as to the effect of an endorsement by an American politician, on a foreign Presidential campaign race? To the best of my recollection I haven’t remembered any, so I’m curious if there’s any effect at all, and I seriously doubt if there is any.
    And I wonder if that is considered tampering with the election process of France? I can remember when Obama urged the British to vote to stay in the European Union, and they completely ignored him? He apparently hasn’t learned to stay out of European races. It seems as if the arrogant narcissist Former president Obama has a knack for putting his nose in where it doesn’t belong, If nothing else the man is consistant. But that’s nothing new, except he keeps on proving my point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Le Pen will not win the French run off election. Making Trump a loser so to speak.

      Further, Obama is now a private citizen with no authotity or influence. Other than the respect he earned worldwide, the result of the intelligent, thoughtful, and presidential manner in which he conducted himself while in office.

      Narcissism is a mental illness. One not suffered by Barack Obama.

      Delete
    2. Le Pen will not win the French run off election. Making Trump a loser so to speak.

      Further, Obama is now a private citizen with no authotity or influence. Other than the respect he earned worldwide, the result of the intelligent, thoughtful, and presidential manner in which he conducted himself while in office.

      Narcissism is a mental illness. One not suffered by Barack Obama.

      Delete
    3. "Narcissism" wasn't Obama's chief mental illness? Who knew?

      Delete

  28. Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director, pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution:

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.