Is Hannity really this stupid?

Sean Hannity has a blog.
Or someone has a blog that Hannity puts his name on. I'm pretty sure that Hannity would have a hard time producing an actual blog by pounding his balled up fists into the keyboard

 

Take that, liberal elite!

Anyway, here is some of the brilliant insight you'll get from Hannity's blog.

The mainstream media’s shameless pandering to the Clinton campaign has been on full display since the Muslim father of a fallen soldier gave a speech at the DNC, blasting Donald Trump for his stance on immigration and Islam.
According to MRC, In the four days following his speech, the network evening and morning news shows spent a whopping 55 minutes and 13 seconds covering the story….
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the news coverage for Pat Smith and her speech at the RNC.
Smith—who lost her son in Benghazi under Hillary Clinton’s watch—gave an emotional speech at the convention which was mainly ignored by the media.
In the 14 days after her speech, the network news shows dedicated just 70 seconds to her address.
ABC, CBS and NBC should be ashamed of themselves….

Hmmmm. . . the media spent more time talking about the father of a young man who gave his life for his country, a man whose name you can't bring yourself to mention, than they spent on "Benghazi mom" Pat Smith.

 

I'll need to verify this photo.

Anyway, how could this be? How could this possibly have occurred? Hmmmmm. . . .

Hmmm, maybe - and I'm just spitballing here, but maybe it might have something to do with the responses of the candidates? Maybe?

Okay, first Pat Smith literally said that she personally blamed Hillary Clinton for the death of her son. And Secretary Clinton opted to be a fucking grownup, say nothing, and not make the situation worse. So there wasn't much of a story other than "lady at RNC says a shitty thing about Hillary, followed by every other speaker at RNC saying shitty things about Hillary."

On the other hand, Kizhr Khan rightly pointed out that you have sacrificed nothing for this country and wondered whether you had ever read the Constitution. Which isn't exactly character assassination or slander or whatever. Most of us have not sacrificed for our country. I certainly haven't.  And I'm guessing most Americans have never read the Constitution. I was a history major and I managed to graduate without slogging through it.
But Donald Trump, ya boy, instead of mirroring Hillary's approach decided to go with the tried and true "5-year-old throwing a tantrum" tactic.

 

 Hey, it's a classic for a reason, amirite?

 First he insinuated that Mr. Khan couldn't have written his own speech, then he talked shit about his wife.  Which is what made it a news story.
Then, when given the chance to clarify, Trump said the most preposterous, laughable, and just stupid nonsense about how he believed that having been successful and having :built great buildings" were sacrifices he had made for a grateful nation. Which made the story "Holy Shit, Can You Believe What a Delusional Buffoon Trump Is?"



So I'm not really sure that the networks are the ones who should be ashamed.

It was cute 4 years ago, it's cute now.

SCHEDULED EVENTS FOR THE 2012 2016 CAT OLYMPICS


























GYMNASTICS


















SWIMMING


















TENNIS


















CROSS-COUNTRY



















SOCCER



















THE LONG JUMP
















THE HIGH HURDLES





























THE HIGH JUMP





















GRECO-ROMAN WRESTLING




















AND EQUESTRIAN EVENTS





























SOME MEMBERS OF THE CAT SOCCER TEAM WILL BE TESTED FOR STEROIDS.

Interesting Legal Approach

So two of the families of the people murdered in Benghazi are suing Hillary Clinton. I can't hold that against them. They're grieving, and they feel like they need someone to blame, I get that. But, considering that Secretary Clinton has been exonerated by about two thousand Republican investigations that were designed specifically to find a way to blame her, I don't see how they're going to find a lawyer willing to take this loser of a case.


Enter Larry Klayman.

Wait, Larry Klayman hasn't been disbarred yet?

Not even after this?

Right-wing lawyer Larry Klayman announced in WorldNetDaily over the weekend that he was filing a lawsuit against President Obama, Black Lives Matter, Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton "for endangering not just my life, as a white law enforcement person of Jewish origin, but also for all Americans, white, black, yellow or brown, no matter what their race or religion.

 Shhh. . . no one tell him! He thinks he's a "law enforcement person!"

Or this?

Klayman Discusses Citizens Grand Jury to Seek Indictment of Justices Roberts and Kagan

Anyway, what novel legal approach is America's worst lawyer going to take, seeing as how even her greatest enemies have not been able to find a way to blame her for the tragic deaths?

Having used a secret private email server that we now know was used to communicate with Ambassador Christopher Stevens with confidential and classified government information, and which we now know was likely hacked by hostile adversaries such as Iran, Russia, China and North Korea aligning with terrorist groups, it is clear that Hillary Clinton allegedly negligently and recklessly gave up the classified location of the plaintiffs’ sons, resulting in a deadly terrorist attack that took their lives.

Who else could have come up with such an innovative legal approach?

If Hillary Clinton hadn't used a private e-mail server, which we can just assume was hacked by everyone from Kim Jong Un to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the terrorists would never have known that there were US State Department employees in the, um, US Embassy. . . wait. I think I see a flaw in your case, Larry.

"Gosh," the terrorists would have said, "I'd sure like to kill some American infidels, but where could we find any?"
"How about that building with the American flag out front? The one with US Marines guarding it?"
"No, I'm pretty sure that's a Chinese restaurant. I got no beef with the Chinese."

CNN is a trainwreck, Don Lemon is the conductor.

How is CNN still on the air? ( I know, it isn't "the air" anymore, I'm old.)
And how do they keep trotting out Don Lemon?

 

The other day, Clint Eastwood said something incredibly stupid  and, let's say "racially insensitive" at least. 

Now most people just rolled their eyes and said maybe this guy:

doesn't really kn ow what the fuck he's saying anymore.

Or maybe this guy:

might just be kind of a dick.

But Don Lemon heard this and said "an old white guy said something offensive? Convene a panel!"

And of course, it wouldn't be a CNN panel unless they found someone from Hollywood to defend Eastwood's comments. Enter Graham Beckel!

Yeah, I didn't know who he was either. But according to IMDb, he's been in a lot of stuff.

Actor (114 credits)

Known For

L.A. Confidential Dick Stensland

(1997)

Brokeback Mountain L.D. Newsome

(2005)

Leaving Las Vegas L.A. Bartender

(1995)

Another World Officer Jenkins (1984)

(1964)

but I still don't really know who he is.  But apparently his brother Bob works for CNN (seriously) so they were able to land him as an expert commentator.

Here is what he had to say about Eastwood's recent word-poop.

GRAHAM BECKEL, ACTOR: Yes. Clint is 86 years old, lives in Hollywood and kissing ass is a, you know, it's the currency of the realm, everybody in Hollywood kisses ass except people with a tremendous amount of integrity, he being one, Warren Beatty, Tommy Lee Jones, Morgan Freeman, people from the left and the right, some people have integrity, Clint Eastwood is one of them.
And I love the popping you guys are doing with this corn, overrating this some of kind of racist thing about it. I think that's a -- it's dim witted and slam goes...
(CROSSTALK)

What? Okay, for one thing, after hearing Eastwood's comments, I got to figure that Warren Beatty, Tommy Lee Jones and Morgan Freeman are probably not too thrilled about being lumped in with him as "men of integrity."

Hell, considering I dated my granddaughter, I really can't complain!

But "I love the popping you guys are doing with this corn?" That may be the weirdest thing ever said on CNN, and they've had Orly Taitz on! 

And this hot mess.

LEMON: How is -- how is it -- how is it overrating -- how is it being overrated and racist. Explain to me. 

Who else but Don Lemon could make this shit even more confusing by trying to get a clarification?

 

BECKEL: What -- didn't somebody just saying that what Clint was saying was racist? Did I not hear that?

LEMON: But I want you to explain how it's being racist by pointing that out.

Look, I'm no professional journalist like Don Lemon, but I think maybe it should be pointed out that Beckel did not actually say that it was racist to call Eastwood's comments racist. So you could forgive Beckel for being a bit confused at this point. Except that he seemed to be pretty confused when he showed up.

BECKEL: OK, well, to the extent that all that is political correctness, Clint Eastwood kind of transcends political correctness as far as I'm concerned.

You know, Studs Terkel had a great line about "political correctness." It went something like "we had political correctness when I was a kid, we just didn't call it that. We called it common decency." So, every time I hear someone use the phrase "political correctness," I substitute the term "common decency." So, to me, Graham Beckel is saying that Clint Eastwood for some reason, (integrity?) transcends common decency. Like because he's a Hollywood icon or whatever he doesn't need to be a decent human being.

And, you know, I was working with him in San Quentin Prison, we were doing a movie and we had heavy guards around, there's a lot of guards and right before our lunch they all took off and Clint led the crew and the cast through the yard.
There were 800 prisoners in that yard. And they were black, they were white, they were Hispanic, Asian.  Whatever God has ever made the visage of man was in that yard. It was utterly silent. That man walked into the middle of that crowd and everybody suddenly burst into applause and they were cheering him. Why? Because he's the masculine ideal. He's the guy who tells it like it is.

Okay, first of all, stop trying to use big words and high falutin' language. " Whatever God has ever made the visage of man" is a ridiculous way to say "every ethnicity, or every type of person, or whatever the fuck you were trying to say.

And you seriously ask why did the prisoners applaud him? Um, because he's a movie star? And they enjoyed his movies? And also this never happened? At least not the way you describe it. No guards are going to desert a bunch of actors in the middle of the yard in San Quentin prison. Not the prison guards or any private security guards the studio might have hired. They'd never work again if they did that. And sure, Clint Eastwood would probably have been fine because a lot of the prisoners were probably fans, but someone in that cast or crew would have had a pretty bad day. (I can't imagine it would have gone well for the "best boy.")

LEMON: OK. So, Graham, but what does that have to do with this question...
(CROSSTALK)
BECKEL: I don't -- I don't get what the racist question is.
LEMON: OK. Maybe the...
BECKEL: The post-colonial victim bullshit. I don't get it. Sorry.

Well thank God we took the time and expense to get you into the studio for this discussion!

Coming up next, we ask our sports network for his World series predictions and he responds "what the hell is this baseball shit?  The throwing, and the running, I don't get it."

And for some reason, they just keep going.

LEMON: Yes. So, I'm trying to figure out though, Graham, what is being, you know, overly masculine, or being masculine, what does that have to do with racism? And what's the connection? I don't get it.
BECKEL: You know, I read that entire article on the subject of race; it didn't particularly enter in as a feature or fabric of it. And, Charles [Blow], how many -- how many black soldiers spent the winter with George Washington at Valley Forge?

Jeezus Christ, Lemon, he doesn't know! Stop asking him questions! He has no idea how to formulate an answer. He's just tossing out random thoughts.

BECKEL: OK. This whole subject of race and around the election, that's one issue. Clint Eastwood in the context of this article is quite something else. That was a feature of it that was a part of it certainly. But that wasn't the substance of it.

Hey, you can't call Eastwood a racist if only SOME of the things he said were racist!

If he can get through an entire paragraph without using the N-word, he's not a racist!

 You know, why is it -- you know, I always judge people on would they have spent the winter with Washington, anybody who is running for president.
And nobody lately has had that quality particularly. Why is it that they had to ask Trump about women at the top and not find out what the body of his knowledge was?
How many black soldiers spent the winter with Washington at Valley Forge? It's a perfectly legitimate question. The answer is 700.

Um, no one asked you to judge any presidential candidate. No one is asking about Trump's misogyny. And we know what Trump's body of knowledge is. Real estate, the bankruptcy laws, and how hot his daughter is.

Let's give the last word to Lemon's other guest, political commentator Charles Blow.

LEMON: Blow?

 BLOW: No, you don't ask me to answer that. I don't know what this man is talking about.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I am so sick of this

Every four years, we see these bullshit columnists and pundits urging the Democratic nominee to please move more to the "center," to reach out to conservatives, to not be "divisive." I'm sick of it. And I sure don't need to hear it from a ridiculous little schmuck like Ross DoucheHat.

Liberalism’s Big Bet

Ross Douthat JULY 30, 2016

THE key pivot point in the Democratic convention arrived during President Obama’s speech on Wednesday, when he told the throng of Democrats that Donald Trump’s baleful convention rhetoric “wasn’t particularly Republican — and it sure wasn’t conservative.”

. . . As a gesture, it was immensely powerful.. . .

But it was also just a gesture. Yes, the convention’s showmanship was strikingly unifying, bipartisan, moderate — but Hillary Clinton’s domestic agenda is not. She’s running as a liberal, full stop, with a platform well to the left of where her party stood five or 10 or 20 years ago.

Well, considering that 20 years ago the DLC "New Democrats" took over and decided that they'd rather grovel for Wall Street money than try to appeal to unions, environmental groups and civil rights activists, it's really not all that hard to be to the left of the Democratic position of the last few election cycles. Also, it's a bit hard to picture a "liberal, full stop" supporting trade deals like the TPP,  promoting fracking, or boasting about her friendship with Henry Fucking Kissinger, all of which Hillary Clinton has done and is doing. Her domestic agenda may be "liberal" compared to some; she's pro-choice, she's willing to raise the minimum wage, make college more affordable, but she's also from the wing of the party that gave us welfare reform, bank de-regulation and "super-predators," so really, she seems like a moderate at best.

She’s happy to make right-leaning voters feel a little better about fleeing Trump, but she isn’t offering them substantive concessions, or seeking a grand centrist coalition. Instead she’s telling them: It’s me or Trump, and you know you can’t put the nuclear codes in his undersize hands, so my offer is … nothing.

Yeah, that's right. You get nothing. You lose. You get nothing.

Why should you get anything? You don't deserve anything. Who told you guys to nominate this uniquely, spectacularly bad candidate? She's going to mop up the floor with your guy, and she's not even good at this. Some of your voters aren't comfortable voting for a megalomaniacal orangutan with anger management issues? Boo fucking hoo! How is that her problem? Why should she move any further to the right to accommodate  the half-dozen or so sane Republicans left in this country? They don't want to vote for Trump? Good. Stay home. Stay home and think about what you could have done to prevent this walking temper tantrum from becoming your nominee. You let this happen, why do you think your fuckup entitles you to concessions from our nominee?

Imagine, for instance, that you’re one of the many churchgoing voters — Catholic, evangelical and Mormon — repelled by Trump’s vulgarian style, his bigotry and misogyny

Okay. I guess if that's who I am, I would say to myself, "I should have done a better job in the primaries. Instead of the vulgar bigotry and misogyny of Donald Trump, i could've pushed for the creepy, greasy bigotry and misogyny of Ted Cruz. Or the subtle, understated bigotry and misogyny of John Kasich. I guess I have no one but myself to blame."

Oh, wait. Silly me! If I'm a conservative religious Republican, I wouldn't accept any blame. I would, instead, demand that the Democratic nominee change her whole approach to woo my vote, since as we all know, the conservative white Christian voter is the most important. My vote should really count at least double that of a gay atheist or something.

But on social issues, Clinton and her party aren’t even offering the fig leaf of her husband’s “safe, legal and rare” formulation. They’re for abortion rights without exception

Oh, you mean they are in favor of letting a procedure which the Supreme Court has declared to be perfectly legal remain perfectly legal? What a bunch of radicals!

Or again, imagine that you’re one of the many Americans conflicted about immigration policy — you view immigrants favorably, you find Trump’s rhetoric toxic, but you also favor limits on migration, and you want to make sure that the law is respected and enforced.

So I'm one of, what, like 6 people with this oddly specific viewpoint on immigration? Okay. This one's a no-brainer. I vote for the candidate who doesn't want to deport all the Muslims, doesn't want to round up however many millions of Mexican people are in this country, and doesn't think that she can make a foreign country pay for a structure they don't want by sheer force of will.
Oh, and also isn't endorsed by David Duke.

You would be happy to vote for the Hillary Clinton of the early 2000s, who talked a lot about border security and workplace enforcement.

Well, maybe.  But not if I was a church-going Republican. Because if I was a Republican, I would have spent the last 25 years or so being told that Hillary Clinton is a communist, man-hating minion of Satan. And no rhetorical accommodation she might have made at the convention is going to convince me otherwise.

But that Clinton is long gone. Her party is evolving toward the position that illegal aliens, save criminals and terrorists, should never be deported once they’ve reached our soil, and Clinton herself is committed to a unilateral amnesty even more expansive than the one that President Obama attempted.

See, you just did it. You made a ridiculous claim about centrist Democrats being off-the-charts leftists, then complained that they won't move to the "center" to meet you halfway. When, in fact, on this issue, the Democratic Party has been a bit right of center for a while now. President Obama's very moderate, middling DREAM policy is nothing like a unilateral amnesty. No one is saying that no illegal immigrants should be deported, in fact the Obama administration has deported more immigrants than any other in our history, and there's no indication that Hillary would do any differently.

Yet you're sitting there straight-faced claiming that moderates can't possibly find common ground with HRC's far-out borderless "c'mon in, everyone" policy which just does not exist.

Or finally, imagine that you’re a fiscal conservative who appreciated Bill Clinton’s balanced budgets.

Appreciated them so much that you impeached him over a personal affair?
And then turned those balanced budgets into the biggest deficits in history the moment one of your own took the reins?

But you listened to Hillary’s acceptance speech and you heard the voice of Bernie Sanders — expand Social Security, free college, new infrastructure spending, plus a call for a living wage and a jab at “unfair” trade deals

You know, maybe Democrats are just sick of doing your job for you. You are the guys who always harp about the debt and deficit, yet whenever a Republican gets in the Oval Office, suddenly, debts matter to you as much as they did to me when I got my first credit card. None of you assholes has ever balanced a budget or even reduced the deficit. Bill Clinton had to clean up the mess left behind by Reagan and Bush I. Barack Obama has been lowering the insne deficits left behind by Bush II. Maybe if you guys care so goddamm much about balanced budgets, you should do it yourselves. Quit expecting Democrats to clean up your messes.

As Vox’s Andrew Prokop pointed out, there wasn’t even a nod to entitlement reform or the deficit, no mention of the costs of excessive regulation or the virtues of free trade, no real hint of how this largess might be paid for.

Okay, let's take this point by point.
 There was no mention of "entitlement reform" because Democrats don't really like the idea of fucking over the elderly, impoverished, and disabled and calling it "reform."  They don't dislike the idea as much as they should, obviously, but trying to peel a few votes away from the GOP by appealing to the ghoulish, sadistic grandma-starvers out there probably isn't a winning strategy.

Secondly, Fuck your deficit. And fuck you for lumping "entitlements" in with the deficit. You know goddamm well that Social security and medicare don't add a cent to the deficit. You want to lower the deficit? Give up your tax cuts. Chop the hell out of the bloated defense budget. Don't you come after our Social Security pretending you're being "fiscally responsible."

Third, I know you righties like to toss around this bullshit about "excessive regulation" or "job-killing regulations," and I think it's time for us to demand that you name one. Name one. Name one regulation that is doing damage to our economy. Name one regulation that is "killing jobs." And then explain how these regulations are causing more harm than the de-regualtion of the banks did. Name a regulation that has cost thousands of people their homes. Name a regulation that has resulted in billions of taxpayer dollars going to bail out private companies. For that matter, name a regulation that caused more harm than the Savings and Loan collapse, or Enron or Valu-Jet.

And who the hell still believes in the "virtues of free trade?"  You'd have to have been asleep since NAFTA.

Now it’s true that, if elected, Hillary probably couldn’t implement all of these proposals, and conflicted voters who vote for her and for Republicans down-ballot can feel that they’re voting for compromise rather than pure liberalism.

Also, anyone who is remotely familiar with Hillary Clinton knows that "pure liberalism"  is not a phrase anyone would associate with her.

But strategically there are risks. The Clinton campaign needs to expand on the Obama coalition somewhere to make up for its likely losses among working-class white men.

Yeah, no she doesn't.
She has already expanded her percentage of the non-racist vote. And the non-misogynist vote. And the I-don't-want-a-president-who-gets-into-Twitter-wars-with-Rosie-O'Donnell vote. And the I-don't-want-a-President-whose-only-experience-is-being-a-businessman-who-has-had-multiple-bankruptcies vote. I think she's going to be fine. But thanks for your fake concern.

But it’s assuming that it can afford to be more left-wing than Obama while doing so

Um, my neighbor's cat is more left-wing than Obama.

Also, way too extreme in his anti-dog policies.