Monday, February 1, 2016

WHY THE LEFT CAN’T UNDERSTAND ISLAM ^ | 2-1-2016 | Daniel Greenfield 

The left's greatest intellectual error is its conviction that the world can be divided into a binary power struggle in which both sides agree on the nature of the struggle, but disagree on the outcome.
For leftists of a certain generation, it was class. Marx began the Communist Manifesto by laying out a primal class struggle throughout human history. For Marxists, everything in the world could be broken down to a class struggle with the wealthy oppressors on one side and the oppressed on the other.
It didn't matter that this model didn't fit a reality in which Communists leaders came from wealthy backgrounds and their opponents were just as likely to be poor peasants. To the left, everything is defined by the model. Reality is an inconvenience that is suppressed with gulags and firing squads.
Today the variable is identity politics. Everything must be intersectional. There are those who stand on the right side of history, in favor of abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration. Everyone who isn't on board is a racist, even if they're black or Latino, a sexist, even if they're female, or a homophobe, even if they're gay. Once again, reality doesn't matter. The binary struggle is the model for everything.
The left believes that there is a binary struggle over the future of humanity with only two sides. It does not understand how the right actually thinks and it has no room for understanding equally compelling belief systems that operate outside this model.
That's where Islam comes in. Or doesn't.
The left has never been able to understand religion. It's not so much secular or atheistic as it is consumed by a compelling belief system of its own which leaves no room for religious conviction.
It cannot understand anything in terms of what it is. It can only understand things in terms of itself. The left cannot understand religion on its own terms, only in terms of how the religion fits into the left.
Unable to understand religion, the left assigns it a place based on its alignment in the struggle. Is it a reactionary force that supports the existing order of a progressive force that opposes it? Is it working with the ruling classes or the oppressed? Is it on the side of the left or on the side of the right?
Islam is racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic.
The Muslim Brotherhood, which has become the left's closest Islamic ally, was politically influenced by Nazi Germany. Its leaders were outraged by the end of the Caliphate's feudalism and maintain extensive business networks around the world. They incite riots against minorities and seek to establish a theocracy.
If there's any Muslim organization that should be a textbook reactionary, fascist and fundamentalist group, it's the Muslim Brotherhood. But instead the left cuddles up with the violent hate group. Why?
Because the Muslim Brotherhood in the West is aligned with their progressive causes. Therefore it can't be reactionary. If the Brotherhood were aligned with conservatives, then it would be the enemy.
And so liberals don't care what the Koran says. The Koran means nothing to them, just as the Bible means nothing to them. Religion is either on the side of social justice or it isn't. Since Muslims are part of their glorious intersectional rainbow coalition, then Islam must be a good religion.
It's that stupidly simple. And no amount of Koran quotes will change that.
There's a strong element of cynicism here. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But there's also a deeper inability by the left to understand Islam and any ideology outside its worldview.
The left reacted to the rise of ISIS with frantic incoherence. They literally could not understand what made the Islamic State tick because it didn't fit any of their political models. ISIS couldn't exist, yet there was no way to deny that it existed. And so lefty pundits and politicians gibbered that they were nihilists who believed in nothing, even though no one blows themselves up because they believe in nothing.
Muslim terrorists don't kill people because of Allah, the Koran or the Caliphate. It doesn't fit the model. They kill, because like all Third World peoples victimized by colonialism, they are oppressed. A Muslim terrorist doesn't kill Jews or Americans because the Koran commands the Believers to subjugate all non-Muslims. A Muslim migrant doesn't sexually assault German women because the Koran allows him to.
These are all reactions to Western oppression. The Muslim oppressors are really the oppressed.
But the Islamic State killed other Muslims to establish a Caliphate ruled by Islamic law. The oppressed Muslims were suddenly acting like evil Western oppressors. And if Muslims could be oppressors, then the whole binary model the left had been using to explain the world comes tumbling down.
When the left comes up against inconsistencies in its binary model, it doesn't revise the model, instead it tries to understand why people are behaving so irrationally that they don't fit the model. Why don't poor rural whites vote for the left? It must be talk radio and racism. How can there be conservative minorities? False consciousness. Also Thomas Sowell and Stacey Dash aren't "really" minorities.
Islam and Muslims are fundamentally outside the left's model. They are part of their own binary struggle between Islam and everything else. They have their own "right side of history".
Islam and the left both claim to have "perfect" systems that can create a utopia... after a whole lot of killing. They are aligned with each other, yet unable to understand each other because their worldviews have no room for anything outside their perfect models. Leftists despise fundamentalists and Islamists despise atheists and yet here they are working together while ignoring what the other believes.
The left cannot process the idea that religion transcends politics. At best, leftists see religion as a subset of politics. And since Islam conforms to their political axis, it must be progressive. But to Muslims, politics is a subset of religion. Politics cannot transcend religion because it is an expression of religion.
Leftists do not understand religion and therefore they cannot understand Muslims. They see Islam as another religion to be brought into its sphere of influence to promote social justice to its followers. They cannot understand that Muslim clergy will not become preachers of social justice or that Muslims kill because they genuinely believe in Allah and a paradise for martyrs. These ideas are alien to them.
The alliance between Islam and the left brings together two narrow-minded worldviews. The left cannot recognize that Islam wants something other than gay marriage, abortion rights, a $15 minimum wage, Green Jobs and all the rest of its endless social justice agenda because that would put it on the same side as the Republicans and the rest of the right. And that clearly isn't so either.
The left need not give up all of its beliefs to understand Islam. But it would have to abandon its binary thinking and recognize that there have been and are other struggles in the world than the one it defines. And this the left is unwilling to do because a binary struggle is what makes its worldview so encompassing. If its worldview doesn't encompass the world, then it cannot demand absolute power.
The left cannot accept that its great struggle is really a disastrous sideshow in a larger civilizational conflict or that its agenda is not universal, but the product of a particular intellectual strain that has little application outside its own bubble. And so it will go on rejecting the truth about Islam, because learning the truth about Islam would not only destroy the alliance with Islam, but would also destroy the left.

Explaining What Hillary Has Done Wrong

blueunicorn6 | 1/31/2016 | blueunicorn6 

I think that a lot of Democrats don't understand what it is that Hillary has done wrong. Most Democrats don't have experience handling secret material. Most Democrats are not experts about computers or networks.

They do know what Anne-mail is, but they see it in the context of what they know. They get e-mails. Hillary got e-mails. So what? Remember, they have no experience in dealing with communications security.

Let's say LeBron James gets mad at an opposing player and hits him in the mouth in a game. That would be an intentional flagrant foul. LeBron would be penalized. He did it on purpose and it could have seriously injured the other player. LeBron would be tossed out of the game.
What if Kevin Love did it? Would it make a difference that he is physically different from LeBron? Nope.
What if a female player did it? It wouldn't matter that she's a female. It's still a foul and she would be penalized.
This is like what Hillary has done. She did commit an intentional flagrant foul with this e-mail business. She did it on purpose and it could get many Americans killed.
Hillary should be kicked out of the game.
Only, she did even worse.
What if the opposing team contacted LeBron and said they would pay him to tell them what rooms his teammates were sleeping in so they could go and cut their throats. And LeBron told them and took the money.
LeBron would go to prison!
But this is what Hillary has done. She committed an intentional flagrant foul and then sold us, her teammates, out for some bucks.
This is why Hillary needs to go to prison.

If you can't prosecute Hillary Clinton, then you can't prosecute Edward Snowden!

Flopping Aces ^ | 01-31-16 | DrJohn 

snowden clinton
"Names of all US foreign covert operatives found on Hillary Clinton non-secure email server. 'They weren't marked classified at the time' says Clinton."
Just waiting to see that headline.
Hillary Clinton's entire life has been one of abusing the rules. She and her louse husband truly believe they are not bound by the same ethics as everyone else and Bill has admitted it:
"There's one set of rules for us and another set for everyone else"
As far back as Watergate, Hillary Clinton displayed a lack of ethics:
Jerry Zeifman, a counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee,who supervised Clinton on the Watergate investigation. Zeifman's 2006 book, "Hillary's Pursuit of Power," states that she "...engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules."
Further his website added:
"Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president - and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed."
With no experience whatsoever, Hillary turned a $1000 investment in cattle futures into $100,000. At the link, you'll find more of Clinton scandals most have forgotten about, including Chinagate, Travelgate, Lootergate and Whitewater.
A list of 27 famous Clinton lies can be found here.
Way back in 2009 Clinton signed a document agreeing to protect classified information:
On January 22nd, 2009, Hillary Clinton signed a Non-Disclosure agreement, or NDA, where she agreed to protect highly classified information, and a failure to do so could result in criminal prosecution."I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in my termination of my access to SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) and removal from a position of special confidence," the NDA reads.
"I have been advised that any authorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 798 and 952, Title 18 United States Code..." These are provisions of the Espionage Act, and as Fox recently reported, 18 USC 793 subsection (f) is of special interest to the FBI investigation as it includes "gross negligence" in the handling of national defense information.
In the latest Friday night document dump 2,000 Hillary Clinton emails were made public. Twenty two of them were not released, as they were considered "too damaging" to even release in redacted form. The State Department has been dragging its feet in releasing the Clinton emails and won't meet a Court ordered deadline to release the remaining emails due to an "internal oversight."
Now the Clinton campaign wants the Top Secret emails made public.
democrats are attempting to defend Clinton:
(Excerpt)

This was all planned’: Former IG says Hillary, State Dept. are lying! (let lying dogs sleep)

The New York Post ^ | 1.31.2016 | Paul Sperry 

The State Department is lying when it says it didnt know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal e-mails and a private server to conduct official business because it never set up an agency e-mail address for her in the first place, the departments former top watchdog says.
This was all planned in advance to skirt rules governing federal records management, said Howard J. Krongard, who served as the agency’s inspector general from 2005 to 2008.
The Harvard-educated lawyer points out that, from Day One, Clinton was never assigned and never used a e-mail address like previous secretaries.
Thats a change in the standard. It tells me that this was premeditated. And this eliminates claims by the State Department that they were unaware of her private e-mail server until later, Krongard said in an exclusive interview. How else was she supposed to do business without e-mail?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Homeless begger accepts credit cards!

Telegraph UK ^ | David Millward 

A beggar in Detroit has entered the digital age, accepting credit card donations.

Abe Hagenston, 42, who has been on the streets for nearly a decade, has brought an unprecedented measure of sophistication to begging.
It is all rather a long way from "Buddy can you spare a dime."
Having a technological background - he was a web designer - Mr Hagenston has paved the way in cashless panhandling.
Thanks to his mobile phone, he can process payments before the traffic light has changed.
He takes Visa and MasterCard, naturally American Express will do nicely, with the money being transferred to his account thanks to a smartphone attachment which can read credit cards.
The phone – nicknamed the Obamaphone – was provided by the US government's Lifeline Assistance programme.
Like all true professionals, he has a LinkedIn account. Mr Hagenston also has his own website.
He uses the website to solicit further donations and offer his services to carry out odd jobs from clearing snow to mowing the lawn.
If he is unable to do the work, he knows other homeless people who are willing to do so.
"My business is being homeless, now homeless is my business," he explains
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

I've given cash to homeless people, but personally I don't know that I'd trust doing credit card.... 

"We"-sel Words: Libs exempt selves from collective guilt

The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press ^ | January 31, 2016 | Daniel Clark 

One of liberals' many assaults on the English language is in their tendency to use the first-person plural when referring to groups of people that do not include themselves. Take, for example, embittered former first lady Rosalynn Carter, who once said about her husband's successor, Ronald Reagan, "I think this president makes us comfortable with our prejudices."

By saying this, Mrs. Carter was not confessing to harboring prejudices of her own. Rather, the "us" of whom she spoke was the electorate, who presumably were not motivated by prejudice when they'd elected her husband, but acquired this moral flaw before throwing him out of office four years later. The real point of this statement was to accuse Reagan of bigotry, except that she knew she had no evidence to support the charge, so she fuzzified it, by suggesting instead that he somehow vaguely enabled that characteristic in others.
By positioning herself as the one among "us" who disapproves of "our prejudices,' she rhetorically rose above all the other inhabitants of that collective. Therefore, what she really meant was "I think this president makes you comfortable with your prejudices."
If that sounds familiar, it should, because actor Danny DeVito has made similar remarks in reference to accusations of racism within the Motion Picture Academy. "It's unfortunate that the entire country is racist," he told the Associated Press at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. "We are living in a country that discriminates and has certain racist tendencies, so sometimes it manifests itself in something like this, and it's illuminated. But generally speaking, we're racists. We're a bunch of racists."
Of course, DeVito is not really admitting that he is a racist. He's just stepping on others in order to raise his own stature. He illustrated exactly this in a recent interview with The Daily Beast, in which he slammed America as a racist country founded on genocide. "Listen to Noam Chomsky, get the Howard Zinn [sic], and try to elevate your children, brothers and sisters," he said, approvingly citing two of the most thoroughly dishonest, America-hating faux historians of all time. He couldn't have spelled out his motivation any more clearly if he'd openly declared himself to be an insecure liberal hypocrite. The way to elevate oneself to put down one’s country.
If he thinks the statistical disparity in Academy Award nominations is due to racism, he should reserve his insults for those who are actually responsible. The Oscar balloting is done by movie industry insiders, not the mainstream American people they routinely mock. Each division of the awards is voted on by the corresponding branch of the Academy, meaning that the nominees for the four acting categories are selected by actors. DeVito doesn't condemn his fellow actors, however, because they're the ones whose approval he seeks. He would no more charge them with racism than Mrs. Carter would associate prejudice with Southern Democrats.
These are far from isolated examples. White male liberals routinely depict whiteness as a civil rights violation, and denounce all men as predatory swine. Non-liberals often make the mistake of concluding from this behavior that liberals are self-loathing. Rest assured that of all the things liberals loathe, the self is not among them. A liberal puts down a group that ostensibly includes himself in order to render himself exceptional to that group. For instance, when Michael Moore rails against rich, white American men who consume more than their fair share, he is not talking about himself, nor do other liberals suppose that he is.
What's convenient about being the exceptional one is that, if everyone else in your group is irredeemably awful, then you're the good one by default, without having to regulate your behavior according to any ethical standards. Thus, a liberal may confidently assert his own superiority, even if he is a hateful, disloyal, irresponsible liar. Meanwhile, this automatic self-exemption from collective guilt serves to shield him from charges of hypocrisy, because if he really is exceptional, he can pillory "the rich" while being far wealthier than most of the people he puts in that category.
DeVito isn't even forced to confront the fact that accusing everyone of an entire nationality of racism is itself an expression of bigotry. That's because he only goes around making this declaration to other liberal elitists, whom he knows will respond with nothing but admiration. Just look at how he's elevated himself above America by putting it in its place, they’ll say. How big of him!
... So to speak.
-- Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a web publication called The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press, where he also publishes a seasonal sports digest as The College Football Czar.

(UCONN) College Announces Plans of a Dorm Only For Black Men!

The Blaze ^ 

In order to help black males graduate, the University of Connecticut is constructing a dorm with a living space only for them. Called the ScHOLA2RS House, the living community for African American males is set to open in 2016.

Dr. Erik Hines, an assistant professor of educational psychology and the future faculty advisor to those in the dorm, said UConn will implement the living space as a “forward-thinking” solution to the fact that black male students graduate at a lower rate.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

What Would a Donald Trump Presidency Be Like?

BBC News ^ | 1 hour ago | Anthony Zurcher 

If Donald Trump were to win in November, he would be the first man to take the White House without having previously held public office or served at a high level in the military. Because his election would be without precedent, it's difficult to predict what a Trump administration would look like.
He has offered some hints, however.
He's suggested that Congressman Trey Gowdy, head of the committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi consulate attack, could be his attorney general. (That was before Mr Gowdy endorsed Florida Senator Marco Rubio, however.) He's mentioned that 2012 Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin would have a place in his presidential cabinet and billionaire financier Carl Icahn is a possible treasury secretary. He's also said he might tap corporate former chief Jack Welsh and investor Warren Buffett as economic advisers.
Mr Trump has generated political shockwaves with his at-times bellicose campaign style and controversial proposals on US border security and a temporary halt on the entry of all Muslims into the US, but he's started offering a more measured, conciliatory tone.
"When I'm president, I'm a different person," he said recently. "When you are running the country, it's a different dialogue that goes. And we can do that easily."
That's been music to the ears of some Republican insiders, who have suggested that a Trump administration may be open to overtures from the party establishment he has often spurned.
Top priorities: Halting illegal immigration, improving border security, policing trade with China.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Cult of Personality

Personality, Cult of

Cult of personality is a pejorative term implying the concentration of all power in a single charismatic leader within a totalitarian state and the near deification of that leader in state propaganda. Totalitarian regimes use the state-controlled mass media to cultivate a larger-than-life public image of the leader through unquestioning flattery and praise. Leaders are lauded for their extraordinary courage, knowledge, wisdom, or any other superhuman quality necessary for legitimating the totalitarian regime. The cult of personality serves to sustain such a regime in power, discourage open criticism, and justify whatever political twists and turns it may decide to take. Among the more infamous and pervasive cults of personality in the twentieth century were those surrounding Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Francisco Franco, Chiang Kaishek, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, Juan and Evita Peron, Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet, Kim Jong Il, and Saddam Hussein. The term is occasionallyif idiosyncraticallyapplied to national leaders who did not seek similar godlike adulation during their lifetime or term in office but have been later glorified by the government or in the national mass media. Examples might include George Washington, Napoléon Bonaparte, Abraham LincolnVladimir Lenin, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Charles de Gaulle, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and others.
A cult of personality differs from Thomas Carlylehero worship in the sense that it is intentionally built around the national leader and is often used to justify authoritarian rule. In one of the more idiosyncratic usages, it is sometimes applied by analogy to refer to the public veneration of famous leaders of social movements such as Karl Marx, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Che Guevara, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, and others. In fact, the term itself derives from Karl Marxs critique of the superstitious worship of authority that had developed around his own personality, acclaimed merits, and contribution to the work of the First Socialist International in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
Historically, numerous rulers have promoted their own cults of personality. Absolute monarchies were the prevalent form of government for much of recorded history, and most traditional monarchs were held in public awe and adoration. For example, pharaonic Egypt, Imperial China, and the Roman Empire accorded their crowned sovereigns the status of revered god-kings. The doctrine of the divine right of kings claimed that absolutist monarchs such as Henry VIII, Louis XIV, or Catherine the Great sat on their thrones by the will of God. The democratic revolutions of the eighteneenth and nineteenth centuries made it increasingly difficult for traditional autocrats to retain their divine aura. However, the development of the modern mass media, state-run public education, and government propaganda has enabled some more recent national leaders to manipulate popular opinion and project an almost equally extolled public image. Cults of personality developed around some of the most notorious totalitarian dictators of the twentieth century such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, who at the peak of their personalistic power were lionized as infallible, godlike creatures. Their portraits were hung in every private home or public building, while the countrys artists and poets were expected to produce works of art idolizing the hero-leader.
Many lesser known autocrats have engaged in similar self-glorification, subordinating nearly all aspects of national life to their fickle vanity, megalomania, and conceit. In post-Soviet Turkmenistan, for instance, the late president-for-life Saparmurat Niyazov encouraged his own cult of personality, dotting the local landscapes with public monuments to himself and even renaming the months of the year to pay homage to himself and his family. After declaring Turkmenistans independence in October 1991, the former chairman of the Sovietera Council of Ministers and first secretary of the Turkmen Communist Party quickly established himself as the center and source of all political authority in the new country. Niyazov became the first president of independent Turkmenistan and won the uncontested 1992 election, which was the only presidential election held during his rule. He assumed the title of Turkmenbashi (head of all the Turkmen), and the countrys obedient legislature proclaimed him president for life. He even authored a bookthe Ruhnama, or Book of the Spiritthat became a compulsory part of the curricula at all levels of the national educational system.
The term cult of personality became a buzzword after Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev bitterly denounced Stalins near deification before a closed session of the Twentieth Party Congress on February 25, 1956:
The cult of personality acquired such monstrous dimensions mainly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. One of the most characteristic examples of Stalins self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948. This book is an expression of the most unrestrained flattery, an example of making a man into a god, of transforming him into an infallible sage, the greatest leader, sublime strategist of all times and nations. Ultimately, no more words could be found with which to praise Stalin up to the heavens. We need not give here examples of the loathsome adulation filling this book. All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally and some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book. (Khrushchev 1989)
In a country long known for its traditional worship of religious saints and czars, the public exaltation of Soviet leaders was deliberately pursued as necessary for building national unity and consensus. The result was Stalins cult of personalitythe total loyalty and dedication of all Soviet citizens to the all-powerful leader, whose demigod personality exemplified the heroism and glory of building socialism in one country. KhrushchevSecret Speech was a major break by the post-Stalin leadership with the oppressive dominance of Stalinism. Big Brother,a fictional character in George Orwells famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is widely believed to be a satire of Stalins cult of personality (even though it is equally likely to have been based on Britains ubiquitous Lord Kitchener).
SEE ALSO Authoritarianism; Autocracy; Divine Right; Hitler, Adolf; Khrushchev, Nikita; Mao Zedong; Peronism; Social Movements; Stalin, Joseph; Stalinism; Totalitarianism


Bown, Matthew C. 1991. The Cult of Personality: The Apotheosis of Stalin, 194556. In Art under Stalin. New York: Holmes and Meier.
Chandler, David P. 1999. Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Hollander, Paul. 2002. The Cult of Personality in Communist States. In Discontents: Postmodern and Postcommunist. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Khrushchev, Nikita S. 1989. O KyЛьTe ЛИЧHOCTИ Иero IIOCЛeДCTBИЯX[On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences]. И3BeCTИЯ Ц ΠCC [The News of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union] 3 (March).
Overy, Richard J. 1997. The Cult of Personality: Stalin and the Legacy of War. In Russias War: Blood upon the Snow. New York: TV Books.
Ryan, Louise. 2001. The Cult of Personality: Reassessing Leadership and Suffrage Movements in Britain and Ireland. In Leadership and Social Movements, ed. Colin Barker, Alan Johnson, and Michael Lavalette, 196212. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press.
Rossen Vassilev

In Case You Missed It Dept.

Harry Belafonte formed a Hollywood group aimed at stopping Donald Trump, claiming he's racist. This could backfire. Last week, the AP reported that Trump was endorsed by an all-white group, and all he could do was stand at the microphone and thank the Academy for the nomination. 

Hillary Clinton was discovered to have trafficked top secret information on her server that's so secret even the Inspector General and House Intelligence committee can't see it. It gets worse for Hillary. Black Democrats might boycott the Democratic primaries because all the nominees are white. 

Bernie Sanders was ripped for a TV ad that shows only white people cheering for him in Iowa Sunday. It's all explainable. Democrats fly two planeloads of black people back and forth between Iowa and New Hampshire for the crowd shots and the Extras Union doesn't let them work on Sunday. 

New York City was buried by a foot of snow after a blizzard blew up the Eastern Seaboard and coated everywhere from Georgia to New England with snow. The snowstorm worked in Hillary Clinton's favor Friday. The guy who hands out the subpoenas couldn't get his car out of the driveway. 

The MPAA in Hollywood announced new rules on Friday broadening Academy membership to diversify the Oscar voting results. This won't end well. A year from now, Meryl Streep will be the first of seven thousand winners to stand onstage and thank the Academy for her Participation Trophy. 

Baltimore surgeons last week transplanted a penis shortly after Cape Town doctors pioneered the procedure. Scientific progress is often parallel. Last week a surgeon transplanted a monkey's head onto another monkey's body on the same day Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump for president. 

Donald Trump admitted Friday he did not expect Sarah Palin to talk so long when he stood by her at a podium in Iowa Tuesday and received Sarah's endorsement for president. For fifteen minutes he had to stand onstage without talking. Trump calls it the most painful experience of his life. 

The Los Angeles Rams held a season ticket sale online from team headquarters at the Forum on Thursday. They got ten thousand orders in ten minutes but then the team website malfunctioned and crashed. As a result, half the Rams fans have season tickets and the other half have ObamaCare. 

The Acapulco Times reported that a married couple in Mexico gave birth last week to a rare healthy set of quadruplets. The babies were born a few weeks early and caught the mother and father completely by surprise. That explains why the children were born in Mexico instead of Arizona. 

Democratic Socialist candidate Bernie Sanders went flying by Hillary Clinton in an Iowa poll Monday due to voters' mistrust. He's quite exotic to Iowans. However, Bernie still gets agitated whenever somebody asks him if he's going to do another season of Curb Your Enthusiasm if he loses. 

Donald Trump jokingly told a crowd Saturday his followers are so loyal to him he could stand on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and they'd still support him. It's not just talk. Trump not only said he could shoot somebody and still get elected, he volunteered to demonstrate it on Ted Cruz. 

The Pentagon said the U.S. will send eighteen hundred ground troops into Iraq to help capture Mosul in Iraq and Acca in Syria. The same day, an Arkansas teenager said he was turned down by the Marines because of a Confederate tattoo on his arm. They told him we aren't THAT mad at ISIS. 

Bernie Sanders took a twenty-point lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire Monday. He is seventy-four years old. Bernie Sanders could be the first U.S. president whose State of the Union speech is interrupted forty-seven times by applause and twenty-three times because he has to go tinkle. 

Donald Trump attended a Presbyterian service in Des Moines Sunday where the female pastor promoted amnesty. He stayed cool. During the communion ritual, when the pastor held up the bread and wine and announced the presence of the Son of God, Trump stood and waved to the congregation. 

Donald Trump said he will skip Thursday's Fox news debate because Megyn Kelly is there. She tried to embarrass him in the first debate by quoting his salty exchanges with his female critics. Later that night, Trump called Megyn a bimbo, so it's only a matter of time before he asks her to marry him. 

President Obama touted Hillary Clinton for president in a Politico interview Monday where he described his former Secretary of State as wicked smart. It had to help. President Obama added that there's no limit to what Hillary can accomplish as president if she's willing to ignore the Constitution. 

Hillary Clinton fended off questions about her e-mail scandal during Monday's televised town hall meeting on CNN. The FBI has one hundred-fifty agents working the case. No one wants to say Hillary could be indicted any day now, but this morning the dry cleaners made her pay in advance. 

Hillary Clinton sounded frail in a CNN town hall meeting for Democratic candidates Monday night with the race tightening. It's about to get serious. The CBS poll has Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton by two points and another poll has Hillary beating Bernie Sanders with a folded chair. 

Ringling Brothers yielded to pressure and agreed to take elephants out of the circus starting in April. Sometimes animal rights activists seem to go overboard. Last week a San Francisco zoo euthanized one of its elephants, not because it was sick, but because they thought it was a Republican. 

New York former mayor Mike Bloomberg admitted Tuesday that he's considering running for president as an Independent. A financial analysis recently estimated Mike Bloomberg's worth at fifty billion dollars. He sees himself as five times more qualified to be president than Donald Trump is. 

Donald Trump refused to participate to the Fox News debate Thursday because he doesn't get along with moderator Megyn Kelly. It's getting nasty. Yesterday Donald Trump described Megyn Kelly as a bimbo, and out of habit, Hillary Clinton ordered her to be destroyed before she goes public. 

Barack Obama met Bernie Sanders at the White House Wednesday in tribute to the socialist's popularity. Ben and Jerry's just came up with a new ice cream flavor inspired by Bernie Sanders. It sells in the grocery store for two-ninety-nine a quart, and after taxes it's six hundred thousand dollars. 

The Environmental Protection Agency fired the federal administrator who oversaw the quality of drinking water in Michigan. The world has completely flipped in my lifetime. Believe it or not, there was once a time when all the GM jobs were in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. 

-- Argus Hamilton

No End!


Quickly Knave!


Stop me!


See something?






The "N" word






Enemy of my enemy


Same thing!


No passion zone