The 2019 Conservative Olympics.

It's that time of year again. Time for CPAC, the right-wing Olympics, in which conservative shitheads compete in events like Who Can Tell The Stupidest Lie and Who Can Be The Most Offensive.


In the normal person Olympics, there are categories like Track and Field, Aquatics, or Cycling. In the shitlympics of CPAC, most events are organized into 4 major categories: Dishonesty, Insanity, Stupidity, and Shamelessness.


It's early in the competition yet, but let's check in with some of our contestants.

One of the first notable participants was the "My Pillow" guy, Mike Lindell.



Until recently, Lindell was known only for making a pillow that is pretty much the same a s any standard pillow you'd find in any Target or Wal-Mart and somehow convincing people to pay 50 bucks for them. So he's definitely got shamelessness going for him. Let's see his floor routine.

Mike Lindell, a conservative Christian and owner of My Pillow, asserted on Thursday that President Donald Trump has been “chosen by God.”

Now ordinarily, a move like this would be considered to have a high degree of difficulty, but this is CPAC, where everyone ptetty much already believes that, so he's going to have to add a new wrinkle if he wants to pull down a high score.

During Thursday’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Lindell told the audience that Jesus had saved him from alcoholism and crack addiction.

Ooh, and he's veering a bit off-topic, this might not play well with the judges. They do love a good Jesus story, but acknowledging that white people get hooked on crack? They may deduct a full point for that. We'll have to wait and see.

“I woke up from years of addiction, and I was oblivious as to what was going on in our country,” he explained. “What I saw before me were friends unemployed, terrible political correctness, people saying happy holidays instead of merry Christmas

Oh, wow! Nicely played! The very thought that the biggest problems our country faced were unemployment and the fact that it wasn't really cool to say racist shit? They're gonna love that at CPAC. And the cherry on top: the fantasy of people afraid to say the words "merry" and "Christmas" even though everyone says those words all the time the entire month of December, that's a sure crowd-pleaser!

“Donald Trump invited me to the meet him at Trump Tower in New York City,” Lindell said. “I walked into his office with high hopes on August 15th, 2016. I walked out of that office after meeting with him and I knew God had chosen him for such a time as this.”

And he sticks the landing!

But, as we said earlier, the low degree of difficulty may cost him here. It's been widely accepted on the right for years that the President of the United States is chosen specifically by God himself to lead the free world unless he's a Democrat. He's really not pulling out anything the judges haven't seen a thousand times before.

Lindell added: “God answered our prayers, our millions of prayers and gave us grace, and a miracle happened on November 8th, 2016. We were given a second chance and time granted to get our country back on track with our conservative values and getting people saved in Jesus name.”

I would say he's beating a dead horse at this point, but to be fair, this is CPAC, where dead horses are beaten like rented mules and these folks eat that shit up.


Now let's head over to the main stage where former governor Scott Walker is preparing to compete in Most oOtrageous Lie:

Holy shit -- here's @ScottWalker suggesting some people "take the baby home and kill the baby at home."

"By the way, it's not live-birth abortion. It's not infanticide. It is murder if you take the baby home and kill the baby at home, it's murder."

Nobody disagrees with that! pic.twitter.com/w6Q8B6wDrA

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 28, 2019

Wow! A very strong opening round from Walker! That lie is going to be hard to beat. The combination of the audacity, the brazen untruthfulness, and the repulsive quality - - well, that's just not something you see every day.

Now our forst international competitor, Sebastion Gorka from God knows what country - FakeAccentistan? Gorka is an experienced veteran in the sport of outrageous lying and is also a Nazi.

Former Trump White House official Sebastian Gorka: "They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved."

😂😭😂😭🤦‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/t5amL02ABm

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 28, 2019

Oooh. That came up a bit short. I mean, it's completely absurd of course, absurdity has always been Gorka's strong suit, but I don't think we're really seeing the offensiveness that it would take to hang in there with Walker. Gorka's lie is laughable, but not in a way that you would feel guilty about laughing. No mention of dead babies, no accusations of infanticide. . . just not his best work. And the judges agree.

It's going to be tough for Gorka to medal this year.

And I'm getting word now that another former governor, Maine's Paul LePage, has entered the competition offsite.

That's right, Perfessor. LePage is not even at CPAC, but this entry could earn him at least a silver in Blatant Racism.

Speaking to the hosts of the WVOM morning show this week, former Governor Paul LePage lambasted a bill being considered by Maine’s legislature to join with other states to essentially bypass the Electoral College and ensure that the President is elected by the national popular vote.
“Actually what would happen if they do what they say they’re gonna do is white people will not have anything to say. It’s only going to be the minorities that would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida,” said LePage.

Oh, and that's a stunningly racist statement from LePage! Very few contestants are able to avoid the "sugarcoating" trap and just pour out straight 100-proof vintage racism like that. We haven't seen a racist this strong since the days of Strom Thurmond and Lester Maddox! I gotta say, this makes him the man to beat in this event.


Well, that's all the time we have tonight. Tune in tomorrow for more coverage of the 2019 Shitllympics. Brought to you by overpriced mediocre pillows!

Be afraid. Be very afraid

Everyone on FOX "News" has their little pre-fab persona to act out. Sean Hannity is the swaggering faux-tough -guy, Tucker Carlson is the spoiled rich kid who ahs fame and fortune but is inexplicably angry All. The. Time. And Fox & Friends play the dual  role of the people who are so cartoonishly stupid that they make the other FOX personalities seem, well, not "smart," exactly but almost normal?
And they also play the part of the people who are scared to death about everything. What's got them peeing their pants in a blind chicken-little terror today? Why, it's none other than out favorite new member of Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez!

First they got into a tizzy because she did something truly frightening. She had the nefarious idea to pay members of her staff a *gasp* living wage!

  I have a request for Tocata and fugue in D-Minor. And a one and a two. . .

(via: IJR)

‘Fox & Friends’ Host Compares Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Staff Salaries to ‘Socialism and Communism’

       .

Sunday morning, the hosts took a shot at the lawmaker for choosing to pay her entry-level staffers an annual salary of $52,000.

Host Pete Hegseth explained that Ocasio-Cortez would be paying her Chief of Staff only $80,000 annually instead of “the actual market rate on Capitol Hill, which is closer to $150,000.” He added, “It’s actually socialism and communism on display.”

You know nothing of my work!

Now how is this communism and/or socialism? Well, see, each member of Congress gets a certain amount of money to hire staff and they have to decide how to spend that money, how many staffers to hire, how much to pay them, etc. And AOC, being a dirty commie, has decided to not pay her chief of staff as much as most members do so that she can pay a living wage to lower-level staffers, and that budgetary decision equals . . . um. . .  communism? I guess?
I mean, I guess if your chief of staff was already making $150k a year and the Congresswoman said "sorry, pal. I'm reducing your pay down to $80k so I can give a halfway decent salary to these other employees, that chief of staff might have a legitimate beef, but since that's not actually happening. . . um. . . COMMUNISM!!!


And it gets even stupider:

For some reason, I can't get the video to embed, but you can watch it here:
https://ijr.com/fox-friends-ocasio-cortez-aoc/

Suffice it to say that one of them has a problem with the fact that she is re-destributing money that came from the government, not her personal earnings, as if every single god damn member of Congress doesn't get exactly the same deal. One of them seems to think that she is literally robbing her chief of staff to pay her entry-level employees, and they all seem to agree that a situation in which the employer decides how much to play employees is the epitome of socialism/communism.

But that freak-out was just a warm-up for this latest fear frenzy:

(Via: C&L)

Fox And Friends Freaks Out: AOC's Vow Not To Have Children Will 'End Earth'

In an Instagram live video this week, Ocasio-Cortez said that it was understandable for young people to question whether to bring children into the world.

Okay, that seems perfectly reasonable -- oh wait, I mean "AAAAUUUGGGHHH!!!"

“Our planet is going to face disaster if we don’t turn this ship around,” she explained. “And so it’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think young people, to have a legitimate question. Ya know, should—is it okay to still have children?”

See,  now this is where it gets tricky being a FOX personality. How do you take a perfectly sensible statement about the perfectly valid trepidation the younger generation has about bringing children into the world and find a way to twist it into something Scaaaaaary?

On Tuesday, Fox News host Pete Hegseth accused Ocasio-Cortez of believing someone could be considered a “bad person” for birthing a child amid climate change.
“Because you’re going to ruin their lives and you’re going to ruin the planet,” Hegseth chided.

Yes. That's exactly what she said. She said having kids makes you a bad person. That's it exactly.

 

“Eventually, if people stop having children, guess what, none of us are going to be here,” co-host Jillian Mele warned.

Okay, wow. First of all - oooh, scary!!!
But also - We are already here. Whether or not the younger people choose to make babies or not has no effect on us being here. And within a half-century, none of us will probably be here anyway no matter how many babies they pop out, because that's how life works. You get old, you die, babies grow up to take your place and soon there is no one left with any memory of you.

“Eventually, if people stop having children, guess what, none of us are going to be here,” co-host Jillian Mele warned. “Like there’s not even going to be Earth anymore.”

Um, I don't know how to break this to you, but even if, somehow, every single person on Earth took what you're pretending is AOC's advice and stopped reproducing and eventually there was no more human race, the Earth would still exist. And it would still teem with life. Honestly, it would be better off without us. Without humans, the land would become re-forested, the rivers and streams would once again be clean and clear and beautiful creatures from butterflies to bears would frolic in the sunshine.

“I don’t want my daughter raised in a socialist environment,” co-host Ainsley Earhardt said of the effort to combat climate change. “I mean, look at Venezuela. That’s what’s bad for the kids.”

Amazing how they can bring everything back to the specter of "socialism" and via that specter, to the nightmare of their imagined version of Venezuela. It would almost be impressive if it weren't so ham-fisted.

I mean, what does socialism have to do with climate change? Who knows? But it's scary, right? "Socialism?" oooooohhhhh!!!

“And what’s unhealthy for society is when they can’t replace themselves,” Hegseth opined. “Demographics say 2.1 [children per household] is a healthy, growing country.”

Demographics say? It's demographics that say that? Is that right? That doesn't sound right to me, but I'm no fancy big-city demographer. If any of you readers are, maybe you could let me know. Because I don't think that's what demographics is. I mean, I know why a FOX Friend is concerned about demographics and population growth. Hint: it rhymes with "what if white people become the schminority?" And that is a scary thought for the rageaholic septuagenarians that make up the F&F audience.

One in particular.

“She said the world is going to end in 10 to 12 years, this is like World War II, this is her religion,” he added.

Um. . . what?
She absolutely did not say that the world would end in 10-12 years. She said, quite correctly, that scientists have determined that we have about 10-12 years to take serious action on climate change before the damage becomes irreversible. I don't know what she said about WWII, but this actually is pretty analogous to WWII, in that we are under a serious threat and need to respond quickly and drastically if we want to neutralize that threat. It will take a lot of money and effort, but so did fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at the same time and we managed to pull that off.

As to the religion part? "This is like World War II, this is her religion?" I'm a little mystified by that.I mean, I grew up a member of the Church of World War II (glory to Patton) and the minister never once spoke of climate change in his sermons.

Let us now read from the Book of Armaments.

“I just don’t like her saying, ‘I’m the boss,'” Mele concluded.

Wow, this became a trope on the right pretty quickly. This idea of AOC thinking she's "the boss."

from National Review:

AOC Is Not ‘the Boss’ for Coming Up with a Plan That Can’t Work

From Fox:

Tucker Carlson: How dumb, arrogant Ocasio-Cortez became the boss of the Democratic Party

from Radio.com:

Newell Normand. : AOC is the boss of the Democrats now, whether they like it or not. 


I guess it's not just the Fox Friends who are scared to death of this woman!

Important relevant advice for normal people

How to Avoid Going Broke After Making $650 Million

Step one: Don't be a fucking moron.

No wait,

Step one: Get $650 million
Step two: Don't be a fucking moron.


So, supposedly, Johnny Depp is broke. Which would actually be a bit of karmic justice, if true. Although he could probably remedy that situation by signing on to any of the dozens of film projects being thrown at him from every angle every day. But, regardless, Johny Depp may, after having "earned" $650 million, may be broke. And someone at Bloomberg thought that the general public needed to be warned about the various pitfalls that accompany large acquisitions of wealth, lest we too fall prey to whatever it is that causes rich people to stop being rich (drugs? settling lawsuits by the women you've assaulted? Paying for the hotel rooms you went Keith Moon in?)

And so once again, I will lay out a simple set of rules that can help any recipient of new-found wealth avoid some of the most common errors, and maybe keep from going broke. Here goes:

1. 1. Have a plan: 

A plan?

A plan? You think a PLAN might be a good idea? Because I'm sure that there are people who could somehow come into a large gaudy sum of money and not make any sort of plans, and those people are probably reading Bloomberg Financial Bullshit News on the regular.

Have a plan: I guess the mere fact that we are discussing a squandered $650 million fortune means I have to start with this one.
Anyone who comes into a pile of cash must think about ensuring it lasts a lifetime. Note this isn't just about actors or athletes, but the 60 million people who stand on the precipice of a $30 trillion intergenerational wealth transfer. 

No. Stop. Stop it right there. Let's not pretend that the general public is going to be rolling in Johnny-Depp-style wealth. Let's not pretend that just because the total amount of wealth being inherited adds up to $30 trillion that that means everyone is getting $500 thousand. Because most of us are getting squat. People with names like DuPont and Walton and Koch are going to be getting the vast majority of that $30 trillion. We don't, no matter how much we may dream of it, have long-lost wealthy uncles who are going to leave us the deeds to their stately mansions provided we can spend one night in the house!!!! Bwahahahaha!!!

The beneficiaries and heirs of all that wealth need a plan to manage that money, even if it is in amounts somewhat shy of a half-billion dollars. Making whatever you have last as long as you need is the goal.

Yeah, no kidding! What a fucking insight!

Let me see if I got this straight.

I want the money. . .
                                  to last . . .
                                                   as long as I need.
Is that it? Do I have that right?
God, no wonder you're the financial expert! Will you be my money adviser guy?

2. Delegate but be involved: Be aware of the details of your own finances. The most successful athletes and musicians have business managers who might handle the day-to-day chores while they are on the road working

Ah, yes. In fact I seem to remember you mentioning something about business mangers earlier in the article. What was it you said again?

Depp is now suing his business manager and his firm for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. 

Right. Right. Yes, I can see the value of having professionals handle one's money.

but they must understand their own earnings, spending and investments. It’s your money, it’s your responsibility — if you do not know the specifics, then you are just asking for trouble. If Michael Jordan and Bruce Springsteen find time to be intimately involved in their personal finances, then you can too.

Right. Sure, That makes sense. Because who's busier than. . . **checks Google** . . a retired athlete and a singer who hasn't put out an album since 2014?

But sure, if those two legendary superstars can do it, there's certainly no reason us regular ordinary folks can't match their achievements. . . wait. What were we talking about? Oh, right. It's certainly feasible for any of us working stiffs, once we miraculously come into great wealth, to learn the ins and outs of finance and develop enough expertise to. . . um. . . monitor our financial advisers? Because we've got time for that, but I guess not enough time to make our own investments? We're not smart enough to decide which mutual funds to sink our vast fortunes into, but we're certainly smart enough to tell whether  our business manager has chosen wrong.

3. Understand your career cycle: We all begin as newbies, grow into our peak earnings years, then scale back the workload or retire.

Yes,. That's how career paths go. And boy, I think that Ike sure is doing a good job as president, eh? And how about that Elvis Presley? Oh, these kids and their "rock and rool" music!

Here's how careers go in the 21st Century. You start out as an unpaid intern. Then, if you're lucky, you become a newbie.Then your position is eliminated, you re-apply to do the same job as a "contractor" with no benefits. Then the company figures out a way to have someone in India do the job for half what they were paying you. Then you drive an Uber and turn your home into an Air B&B. Repeat until death.

 The first decade or so is when we become better, smarter, more skilled; the second phase is when we capitalize on those skills; the last is when we kick back

Right, because it's not as if you need to be constantly acquiring new skills all the time as technology continues to evolve. Just look at all the people making killings right now programming for DOS!

 The mistake of assuming peak earning years will last much longer than they do is surprisingly common.

Note to millennials: "Peak earning years" is a mid-20th-Century concept based on the idea that one's employer was not constantly seeking ways to eliminate one's position and that as one gained experience, one would become more valuable to one's employer and therefore more highly compensated. Obviously this is not something any of you are likely to encounter.

4. Friends and family entourage on the payroll: Buy Mom a modest house, if you’re so inclined, tell everyone you love them, then let them live their own lives. When they come around asking for financial help, politely sending them packing.

Um. . . so. . . the opposite of friends and family om the payroll?

Also, your advice is to be a sociopath? I mean, I get you can't give everyone money for new cars and fancy vacations or whatever, but if my brother needs surgery? And his insurance won't cover a lot of the expense because we live in the country with the absolute stupidest healthcare system on the planet? I'm not supposed to help him even though I'm rich now? Rich enough to buy my mom a house?

And seriously, why is this advice labeled "Friends and Family Entourage on the Payroll?" This one is kinda confusing.

5. Avoid debt

See, now that's the kind of insight that you can only get from an expert professional. Avoid Debt. Wow. I wish i would have thought of that! Because, honestly, my thought was that if I ever win the lottery, the first thing I was gonna do is borrow a bunch of fucking money for some reason.

Avoid debt: Living within your means should get easier as earnings rise. Instead, people find more expensive ways to fritter away their cash. Access to credit all too often is the enabler of profligacy that can easily outstrip even multimillion-dollar salaries. 

So I was right the first time. Don't be a fucking moron.

6. Keep your investments simple: This is especially important for anyone who is on the road or travels a lot for work. If you spend six months shooting a film in Malaysia, you probably lack the time to monitor how much risk your hedge-fund managers are putting on.

Really? Because the impression I got was that if Micheal Jordan and Bruce Springsteen can do it, there's no excuse for anyone else not to monitor their financial wheelings and dealings.
Although, maybe it's different for the large percentage of readers whose job often involves 6-month filming stints in Malaysia.

Better to keep it simple, hold down costs and limit tax liability. A portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds will grow over the years with a minimum of volatility and headaches. Find an experienced pro other than your business manager — if you have one — to help manage this.

Wait, so now I have to hire a business manger AND a separate investment guy? See, I think this is how I'm going to end up going broke, paying all these guys.

1. 7. Understand what money is and what it isn’t: There is so much emotional baggage around money — especially the blind pursuit of it — that we often forget what it is. It isn’t a measuring stick or an end in itself but rather a means to an end. Money is a tool that lets you accomplish specific things, whether paying for good health care, ensuring financial security, freeing you from stress and worry, or covering the costs of leisure and philanthropy.

Not a measuring stick or an end in itself? Are you new here? This is America, pal, not the Merry Old Land of Oz. Grow up!

Depp would have been better served if he approached his money with the same gusto he applied to inhabiting his roles. That’s a lesson for all of us.

Yeah, I think probably he did. That's how he went broke. Approaching money with gusto looks something like this:




  



Do you see a lot of "gusto" in this picture?






No, of course you don't.
Do you even know what gusto is?


Here's a hint:


                



Anyway, none of us are ever going to be rich, but if by some stray miracle we ever do, we'll remember the most important rule. Don't be a fucking moron.

Here's everything wrong with today's Democratic Party in One Headline

Via: POLITICO

‘He is not going to be the nominee’:

Dems slam Sanders over Maduro stance

And no, this is not going to be a "they better nominate Bernie or else" post.  I am a Sanders fan, but I am not a "Bernie or bust" guy at all. Especially this time around with him pushing 80. I may go for Elizabeth Warren this year, or maybe someone whose hat has yet to be thrown into the ring. I don't know. I still think he has the best platform, but. . .anyway, let's not get sidetracked. Back to the problem with today's Dem Party:

‘He is not going to be the nominee’: Dems slam Sanders over Maduro stance
The just-announced 2020 contender declines to say whether the socialist Venezuelan dictator should go.

By MARC CAPUTO

02/21/2019 06:10 PM EST

Updated 02/21/2019 07:14 PM EST

Florida Democrats are denouncing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders for refusing to call Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro a dictator

So. . . Florida Democrats are angry that Sanders won't repeat the lie coming from the right? Nicolas Maduro is NOT a dictator. I don't know whether he's a good presidente' or a bad presidente'. Maybe he's the worst presidente' south of D.C. I don't know and itdoesn't matter, because Nicolas Maduro was duly elected by the citizens of Venezuela. in 2013.A lot of people like to claim that there was something shady about that election, but as the Guardian newspaper reported at the time:

No proof of the supposed irregularities has been offered. Outside observers have previously declared Venezuela's voting system, which incorporates both an electronic ballot and a hard copy, to be among the best in the world.

Taking the oppositon's claims of fraud seriously is tantamount to believing Trump's claims of 6 million illegal votes cast in 2016.

 Maduro was re-elected just last year in an election boycotted by the opposition party who then claimed, again, electoral fraud. It's b.s.  They boycotted because they knew they were going to lose.


And the Democrats like Donna Shalala



are angry at Bernie Sanders - and openly promising that he will not be the nominee which seems pretty shady in and of itself - because why, exactly?

Both of Sanders’ positions play into the hands of President Trump and the GOP, say Democrats. The president just held a rally in Miami on Monday to denounce Maduro and socialism, an appeal to the state’s growing block of Venezuelan-American voters. 

Oh, of course! Because they're afraid they might offend the voters who attend Trump ralliies! Oh, you definitely wouldn't want to alienate the MAGAts!  This time around, they're sure to vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is going to be, as long as we make nice with them and play to their biases and prejudices and general ignorance of the world around them!

Sanders also would not say whether he considered Venezuela’s assembly leader, Juan Guaidó, as the nation’s interim president, which is the position of the United States 

Okay, see now here I do have a problem with Sanders, because he should have stated unequivocally that Juan Guaid' is NOT the interim president of Venezuela. He just declared himself to be the new president because he doesn't like the job Maduro is doing. This would be like Nancy Pelosi holding a press conference and saying "look, we all know Trump is lousy at this job, so I'm President now."
And, while we all might go "damn, I WISH Nancy Pelosi was the new president," we would all have to say "no, Ma'am, you're not. We have laws in this country, and people don't just get to declare themselves President."

Now imagine that Pelosi did this and a bunch of other countries started saying "Yup, Pelosi's President now!" and demanding that Trump remove himself from the White House. I mean, we all want Trump to leave the White House, but not like that.

And Pelosi would actually have a better case than Guaido', because a: Trump actually is unpopular, and b: you want to talk about election "irregularities?" Hoo boy!

Nicolas Maduro is not as unpopular a presidente' as they have tried to lead us to believe.

How many western news outlets showed the massive marches in Venezuela protesting the US-backed coup today? #HandsOffVenezuela pic.twitter.com/YBQpqbdEfl

— Abby Martin (@AbbyMartin) February 2, 2019

I don't know how popular he actually is. I don't know where you would find any reliable polling. From what I understand, he is extremely unpopular amongst the upper class white Venezuelans and very popular amongst Los Indios y Los Negros. Much like Hugo Chavez. And remember when the military coup briefly overthrew Chavez and the US immediately recognized the "new government" nad acted like a dictator had been overthrown? And then the people from the countryside poured into Caracas and DEMANDED that Chavez be re-nstated? Any time the US government refers to a foreign leader as a "dictator" or "strongman," take that with many grains of salt. It generally means he's too far left for their tastes and is sitting on oil.

Sanders did not embrace Maduro in his Tuesday interview with Univision’s Jorge Ramos, who quickly touched on Guaidó being declared the interim president of Venezuela by the nation’s National Assembly following Maduro’s questionable election.
But when he was asked whether he recognized Guaidó as the legitimate leader of the country, Sanders answered, “No.”

Oh. So he did say no. Why were they just saying that he " would not say" whether her recognized Guaido'? 

Forget it,Jake. It's Politico!

Aaaaaanyway. . .

Is Maduro a good or bad president? It's none of our business.
Is Venezuela's economy a mess?
Yeah, kind of. Mainly because the price of oil dropped and then the US put economic sanctions on Venezuela, holding millions of $ owed to Citgo and the Venezuelan oil company in frozen accounts. But no matter how their economy is doing, We. Have. No. Right. To . Interfere. In. The. Affairs. Of. State. Of. Another. Country. I guess Sanders is the only candidate who realizes this, so of course the DNC/DLC types are angry at him! Because the mainstream Democrats' foreign policy philosophy is generally indistinguishable from the right-wing hawks, except they cloak US Empire-building in "humanitarian" terms.



If you've got 20 minutes, here's a pretty good report on the reality of the situation in Venezuela. If you don't have time, a couple of key points:

1: Opposition media is alive and well in Venezuela, there are plenty of anti-Maduro newspapers sold openly at newsstands in Caracas.

2: People are not starving, not eating their pets, not eating rats. The supermarket shelves are full of food. There are shortages of certain specific items, like flour, but there is plenty of food available.

This is the dumbest rabbit hole I have ever been down.

Somehow, this Tweet showed up in my Twitter notifications as if it were a reply to one of my tweets. I have yet to figure out to what this is replying.

#WhoIReallyAmIn4Words

Solve the Riddle Here: #BCCRSS -> https://t.co/u4pfWgwXBd#NENewsConvention #SaturdayMorning #SaturdayThoughts #SaturdayMotivation #TrumpsNotesToSelf #Caturday Wings of Desire #Boskone56 #californiableeding #Syria #Israel #Afghanistan #venezuela pic.twitter.com/TaTBgWmAUi

— #jarnti dowe (@JarntiDowe) February 16, 2019

So, being a normal person, I naturally respomded

Huh?

— Professor Chaos (@akaProfessorCha) February 16, 2019

And immediately got this response:

Just takes about 4 minutes to read... then, Magic!, 'Huh?' no longer required!https://t.co/u4pfWgwXBd

— #jarnti dowe (@JarntiDowe) February 16, 2019

So I clicked on it and began to read because I'm more curious than I am smart. IAlmost right away I had a question:

It refers to B. A. R. What does that stand for?

— Professor Chaos (@akaProfessorCha) February 16, 2019

And I immediately got this response which I assume was translated from English into Japanese then back into English then into Esperanto and then had the William S. Burroughs cut-up method applied to it:

Phonics deception is a huge part of the big picture of the deception on all Humanity- BAR has many meanings, it's all about the sounds- the BAR uses LEGALese to confuse and entrap, EVERYTHING is based on the LEGAL system deception and everyone's caught in trap using legal names.

— #jarnti dowe (@JarntiDowe) February 16, 2019

This did not answer my question. So I clarified:

But when you say someone is or is not a BAR member, what do the letters BAR stand for?

— Professor Chaos (@akaProfessorCha) February 16, 2019

No response. I don't know if I pissed this person off or maybe Nurse Ratched took their phone away, but I still didn't know what B.A. R. stood for.

So, because I never learn, I headed to the Google.

Typing "What is B.A.R." into Google was not at all edifying. There are plenty of articles about the Barr association, cocktail bars, barometric pressure and Browning Automatic Rifles, but I don't think any of them had any information on why a legal name would be illegal. So, I went back to the original link.

That took me to some sort of legal document written by a "Kate of . . . Kaea?" I would swear that the last time I looked, she was calling herself "Kate of Gaia."

Oh, but that will actually make sense in a minute. I mean, not "sense." It won't make "sense" as you and I understand the word "sense," but it will be, let's say, "unsurprising" that Kate would have changed her name in the last 48 hours.

BIRTH CERTIFICATE FRAUD; CLAUSULA REBUS SIC STANTIBUS 

by kate of kaea

For those of you who didn't take Latin in high school, Clausula rebus sic stantibus (Latin for "things thus standing"), in public international law, is the legal doctrine allowing for a treaty to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances. (Wikipedia)

so,



It's gonna get Ca-Razzzzy!


Now, I did NOT go to law school, but I have seen a bunch of Law and Orders so I think I'm qualified to say that this is probably not the most advisable way to begin a legal document:

“ATTENTION: Lawyer, Judge, Government Agent/employee, Police, Common Man etc. et al/any/all who serve as a fictional LEGAL NAME/TITLE/I.D.-ENTITY (pronounced phonetically example: “leg-all enemy”((N-AM-E), “tit-El”/Luciferian)) character in the legal world reality;

Huh?
I mean, you had me at ATTENTION," but after that you kinda lost me.

Okay, so I've looked into this a bit, and it seems that a lot of Kate-of-wherever's philosophy revolves around the fact that words can be spelled phonetically and there are homonyms in the English language, and that leads to something called "phonics deception" which, as you might have guessed, hands your child over to Satan.

Well, it's a bit tricky. I found a blog that Kate has where she gives a nice tidy explanation - - Just kidding, it's goddamm gibberish!

Legal Name Fraud Explained

by kate of kaia

(yes, this time its "Kaia.")

Let's skip past her "explanation" of what the term "fraud" means and get to the  Satan part.

When pair-ents (two minds) or payer-rents choose to REGISTER their children, they are LITERALLY trading off the life source of the being that is SUCKED into that body in this reality for the whore of Baby-loans LEGAL NAME dead child, in essence, ADOPTING Satan’s child in LLEU of heaven’s child. The Laws-R-us effect, raising the dead NAME DEMON and razing the living consciousness you THINK of as YOU and every other human being as well as all sentient life in this reality. In short, YOU offer up your living child as a sacrifice to Satan while your living child commits sign after sign (sin upon sin) and ADOPT the dead LEGAL DEMON literally breathing life into evil with every creation thenceforth.

Well, sure. that makes perfect sense! I mean, a couple goes to the hospital, the baby is born, the parents (Which is a word that sounds sorta like "pay-rents" - makes you think, eh?) give a name for the birth certificate, and then go home with a changeling because. . . um. . .

Now, ordinarily I would just think "oh, that's sad. this lady is nuts," but something weird is happening. According to the website "Lowering the Bar," there seems to be some money behind this. . . I don't want to say "movement," but. . . this "idea?"

As BBC reporter Jon Kelly wrote the other day, billboards like the one above have been popping up all over the UK. They are getting a lot of publicity, which is what billboards are supposed to do, but in this case nobody’s sure what the publicity is for, or exactly who is paying to get it or why. Or what it even means.

And it seems that Kate-of-Goya or whatever isn't the only one trying this legal, um, "strategy."

Believe it or not, the plaintiff who filed this is complaining about somebody else's grammar:

Anyway, I'm sure there is much much farther to go down this particular rabbit hole, but I'm done. This is just too stupid, it's not even entertaining anymore.

Bullshit Headline of the Day

From the always reliable Yahoo News:

So, the Covington Catholic school boys were cleared of wrongdoing in the viral encounter with Nathan Phillips
 People Magazine

Hmm, I hadn't heard about that. By whom were they cleared?

An investigation commissioned by a Kentucky Catholic school of the much-publicized face-off last month between the school’s students and Native Americans in Washington, D.C. found “no evidence” the students made “offensive or racist statements” to a tribal elder or members of his group, according to a February 11th report. The report also concluded the students did not “instigate the incident.”

Um. . . really? We're going to pretend that this was some sort of legitimate investigation?

Rev. Roger Foys, the bishop of Covington, said in a letter to parents that his “hope and expectation” that the inquiry “would ‘exonerate our students so that they can move forward with their lives’ has been realized.” 

Because that's how you get an unbiased, objectivbe investigation. Begin with the hope and expectation that your students will be exonerated. That lets the people you are paying to do the investigation know that you want them to be completely unbiased!


And I'm sure that the investigation was super thorough, right?

 Four licensed investigators spent 240 hours interviewing 43 students and chaperones on the trip and reviewed about 50 hours of “internet activity” on YouTube, Vimeo, major news networks, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

Okayyyy. . . . 

Investigators did not interview Phillips, whom they said they could not contact

And we're going with the headline that says these pricks were "cleared of wrongdoing?" Seriously? Not "Diocese claims that half-assed phony investigation clears their boys of wrongdoing?" Or "Surprisingly, Catholic diocese is adept at covering up misdeeds, alsomt as if they have centuries of practice or something."

People who should shut the hell up about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

So we all know that Tehran Tom Cotton is a boob, right? And a terrible person too, but an absolute boob. Well, he was on fellow evil boob Hugh Hewitt's radio show yesterday and had this to say about AOC's attempt to keep Planet Earth habitable for humans:

Sen. Tom Cotton blasts 'Stalin-like' coverup of Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal FAQ

William Cummings,USA TODAY•February 13, 2019

Because, I guess when Candace Owens is getting headlines for being cool with Hitler: the Early Years, you might as well display a similarly profound misunderstanding of Stalin.

You know nothing of my work!

WASHINGTON – Sen. Tom Cotton believes the news media engaged in a "Stalin-like" cover-up of a Green New Deal document produced by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's office.
During a discussion of the ambitious environmental resolution introduced last week by the freshman New York congresswoman, Cotton pointed to a "frequently asked questions" explainer released, and then retracted, as part of the resolution's rollout.

You know, just like Stalin used to do!

"I understand the Democrats that proposed this immediately tried to retract that white paper that went along with their resolution," Cotton said. "And too many people in the media have been complicit in the Stalin-like or 1984 technique of disappearing it, sending it down the memory hole."

Ah. I see. And how did they do this? How did the media participate in the Orwellian rewriting of history?

 

Oh, right. You're on right-wing radio! You don't have to substantiate your claims or give any supporting evidence or examples. You can just make any sort of outrageous claims you want, as long as they are positive about Trump or negative about any Democrats, and no one is ever going to ask any follow-up questions that might cause you to show that you're completely full of shit. What was I thinking?

Cotton said it was "remarkable" how many Democratic presidential candidates "you had leap onto a proposal that was going to confiscate every privately owned vehicle in America within a decade, and ban air travel so we could all drive or ride around on high-speed light rail, supposedly powered by unicorn tears." 

Oh, okay. So you clearly have a firm grasp of what is in the proposal. It's not like you're just making up ridiculous shit and pretending that that is what the bill says.

I mean, I guess this is the part you're prattling about:

Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle.

So, building lots of charging stations for electric cars. I guess that makes sense, because if you're going to seize all privately-owned cars, first you're going to want to provide a lot of infrastructure for those cars that will no longer be in use. That's logical.

And building so much high-speed rail that air travel becomes unnecessary is absolutely the same thing as banning air travel. You know, just like when automobiles started to become popular, horses were outlawed.

Now only outlaws have horses.

I couldn't find the part about the unicorn tears, but isn't it just like these darn lefties to make unicorns cry?

They're taking my car away!

Oh, and speaking of the Green New Deal, here's a good example of how utterly useless Amy Klobuchar is:

Most of the declared 2020 Democratic candidates have expressed support for the Green New Deal, including . . .  Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
Klobuchar plans to vote for the resolution, but also implied she might not vote for it as written if it came to the Senate floor as "actual legislation."
"I see it as aspirational, I see it as a jump-start," she said in an interview on Fox News Tuesday. "So I would vote yes, but I would also – if it got down to the nitty-gritty of an actual legislation as opposed to, 'oh here’s some goals we have,' that would be different for me." 

Of course! She'll vote for it if it's meaningless. Ys, sure, you betcha! She's all for it if it's symbolic. If it's actually going to do something, well Geez, let's just hold up a minute there, now.
(yes, that's me trying to type in a Minnesota accent.)


And here's another person whose opinion on AOC is not wanted or needed and should just shut the hell up and be glad that we aren't building guillotines yet.

Bill Gates Has Some Harsh Words for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Tax Plan

 Chris Morris Tue, Feb 12 12:36 PM EST 

Oh, really. The guy who made a vast fortune with products everyone hates and tried to avoid using but can't has some thoughts about his tax rate? Oh, do go on! I'm sure we'd all love to hear the insights of a man whose mighty financial empire was built on ripping off Apple's OS (which, to be fair, Apple stole from Xerox) and forcing PC users everywhere to purchase it whether they want it or not.

Bill Gates says he’s fine with the idea of higher taxes for the rich, but plans like the one being championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which target the top income brackets, are too extreme—and could encourage the wealthy to hide their money in offshore accounts.

Oh my God! Could you imagine? Could you even picture a reality in which the wealthy hide their money in offshore accounts? How would that even work? There would have to be a country like Switzerland or the Cayman Islands that would allow the super-rich to hide their wealth in anonymous accounts somehow.

Gates, in an interview with The Verge, didn’t mention Ocasio-Cortez or her well-publicized tax proposal directly by name, but his focus was clear. While the Microsoft co-founder and world’s second richest man agreed the U.S. could be “more progressive,” he downplayed “extreme” proposals, such as the freshman representative’s plan to raise the top tax rate from 37% to 70%.

Oh my God, he's right! That would be so extreme! We haven't has a top rate that high since. . . Um, 1980. Wait, really? Well, that must have been an outlier, right? I mean before that, the top rate was, let's see in the 1940's it was . . . NINETY-FOUR PERCENT??? Oh, well, that was probably because we were fighting World War II. What about the Golden Age, the Pax Americana, the Eisenhower years? Ah, see. Once the crisis was over and we had a stable economy and a conservative president in office, the top marginal rate went back down to a sensible. . . NINETY-ONE PERCENT! You know, I'm starting to think maybe Bill Gates might possibly not know what the fuck he's talking aboiut and should shut the hell up or something.