Gray Lady: Kamala Harris considers major move to back Biden

In a characteristically unprincipled move, by an obviously unprincipled politician, specifically, a woman who slept her way into politics, Kamala Harris seems to be edging toward a public endorsement of the person she referred to as a "racist," former Vice President Joe "Where the F**k Am I" Biden, according to The New York Times, a former newspaper and current birdcage liner.

As The New York Times explains it, the move “could enhance her chances of becoming vice president but could also anger liberals in California.”  

Citing “multiple Democratic officials familiar with her deliberations,” the rag [aka The Times] reported Thursday that Harris is “weighing an endorsement” of "Sleepy Joe." 

She referred to him as a racist in the first Democratic debate.

“Such a move could lift Mr. Biden’s campaign and perhaps do even more to enhance Ms. Harris’s chances of becoming vice president, but it could also anger her liberal base in California,” The Times’ Jonathan Martin wrote.

The good news is that Biden will probably not beat Trump in the election, and he might not even get the nomination as Bernie Sanders [pronounced "Sandahs"] is closing the idiot gap of people who believe he will help the country.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the "Paper of Rectum" that if she does end up endorsing Biden, or any candidate for that matter, she will likely laugh inappropriately and then hold off until the Senate impeachment trial is over.

“Yet she and Mr. Biden, the former vice president, have remained in contact since she exited the race and had a long conversation in the immediate aftermath of her departure,” Martin writes. It is not alleged if they are being intimate, or if it is physically possible on Joe's part to be thus.

Democrats “close” to Harris [except for Willie Brown] told the rag that she is “mindful” that her endorsement would impact the remaining female senators in the race, Sen. Elizabeth "Dances Around Facts" Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Amy "Eat It With Your Hair Comb" Klobuchar (D-MN), and is “uneasy about the prospect of backing a candidate only to see him or her lose California.”

When asked if Biden would consider Harris as a running mate the confused former Vice President said, "Lemons are not always yellow. Did you know that? I kid you not. C'mon, man."

While Biden and Sanders contend for the top spot, the woman with the best shot at the nomination, Warren, has steadily lost ground, mainly because she is a disingenuous liar who is stiffer and less animated than Jeffrey Epstein was on the night of August 10, 2019.

Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings.

Tweet

The Gray Lady endorses 2 women for president

"All Left News That Fits We Print"

The Gray Lady, aka The New York Times, announced on Sunday that it was endorsing two women: a chronic liar and an angry staff abuser for the presidential nominations.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) both identify as women and both, coincidentally, have X-Y chromosomes, making them both biological women and not just women who are men that identify as women.

The Times' decision was immediately mocked on social media.

“In a break with convention, the editorial board has chosen to endorse two separate Democratic candidates for president,” the flaming leftists at the former newspaper wrote in red crayon.  “American voters must choose between three sharply divergent visions of the future.”

The Times went on to demonized all of President Donald Trump's accomplishments as racist and done out of “the veneration of a mythological past.” [By "President Donald Trump" the Times was referring to the Ku Klux Klan, which was a Democratic organization.]

The canary cage liner known as The Times correctly noted that all of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates would be "the most" socialist "president in decades on issues like health care, the economy and government's allocation of resources." And when the government takes over our resources, they will take over all the means of production and the U.S.A. will be known as "Big Venezuela."

The Times wrote, and I will [often sarcastically] comment in brackets to provide the reader with clarity of fact:

There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken. Our elections are getting less free and fair [because Hillary Clinton should have won in 2016 and the damn electoral college got in the way], Congress and the courts are increasingly partisan [because conservatives follow the U.S. Constitution as it was written and the left follows its need to virtue-signal], foreign nations are flooding society with misinformation [something they have done for centuries and now perfected by the Democrats], a deluge of money flows through our politics [while the Democrats pretend to be against money when it doesn't involve getting into their pockets]. And the economic mobility that made the American dream possible is vanishing [as evidenced by the astronomical growth of the global economy, the highest availability of jobs, the lowest unemployment among all groups of Americans, lower taxes keeping more money in the pockets of earners, and the growth of jobs coming back to America.]

Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it. [And by electing a socialist who will destabilize our economy and punish success, this will be achieved by the magic of hope for change.]

That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. [Because nothing says effective like a spinner of tall tales like Elizabeth "Blowing Smoke" Warren and Amy Klobuchar, a thrower of inanimate objects and a screamer at her underlings.]

The Times joined the rest of the media in trying to put an end to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ campaign, highlighting problems with his age, health, and style of politics. The Times wrote:

Mr. Sanders would be [a] 79 [-year-old Communist] when he assumed office, and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern, [unlike Hillary Clinton's health when her staff saved her from taking a header into an SUV when losing her equilibrium]. Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his [rather stupid and impractical] prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive. He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda [but to be fair, Obama promised the oceans would recede and the air would be peachy keen if you voted for him. How'd that work out?] Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising [by "over-promising" they mean promises a lot and actually delivers], divisive figure in Washington for another.

Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller. … [which is why her Indian name is "Throwing Bull"].

Even the left had a laugh at the lunacy.

Carol Roth tweeted:

This is so patronizing and cringey… they can’t even pick one. “Oh, let’s be progressive and pick a woman! Well, we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Let’s pick both, they won’t mind…” https://t.co/l6xxtPUCmD
— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) January 20, 2020

Even the executive director of the Sunrise Movement, which is slightly to the left of Stalin mockingly tweeted:

oh ya totally this makes sense https://t.co/HYGIk8TbRY
— Varshini Prakash (@VarshPrakash) January 20, 2020

Here's another:

Literally seconds from cancelling my subscription. https://t.co/rgrEnruAFr— Chris Martin Palmer (@ChrisPalmerNBA) January 20, 2020

And the mocking went on.

Suffice it to say, the New York Times is so far left, so bias against Trump and so far "in the bag" for Warren [they needed to include Klobuchar because they didn't want to come off as Warren's fan club] that they have reached a point of being a laughing stock.

Even the canaries are asking to change the paper.


Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings.

Tweet

Trump bans Bloomberg News from events due to unethical coverage

Billionaire nanny state leader, former Republican mayor of New York and current Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has declared himself a 12th hour entry into the presidential race and announced a company-wide memo to his "journalists," They will not be allowed to do their journalistic due diligence and cannot report on any Democratic primary candidates, but Trump is fair game. Also, Bloomberg does not believe China's dictator, Xi, is a dictator, but that's another story.

Bloomberg's editor-in-chief, John Micklethwait, made the announcement about the outlet's policy of not reporting on Democrats, but there may be a question as to whether this amounts to an in kind donation to Bloomberg's campaign since they will be trying to dig up dirt on Trump.

The Compromised News Network (CNN) obtained the memo Micklethwait put out: 

“We cannot treat Mike's [Bloomberg’s] Democratic competitors differently than him. For the moment, our P&I team will continue to investigate the Trump administration, as the government of the day. If Mike emerges as the Democratic presidential candidate (and Donald Trump emerges as the Republican one), we will reassess how we do that.”

It seems like Bloomberg doesn't see the problem with the fact that he owns a media outlet and plans to go after his opponent in a presidential campaign. And he fails to see the irony in Trump wanting to find out whether the Bidens were guilty of corruption in Ukraine and China, in spite of the fact that Joe Biden was a Democratic nominee for 2020.

The Trump 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, has called the decision “to formalize preferential reporting policies” both “troubling and wrong.”

“Bloomberg News has declared that they won’t investigate their boss or his Democrat competitors, many of whom are current holders of high office, but will continue critical reporting on President Trump,” Parscale said in a statement, according to Axios. “As President Trump’s campaign, we are accustomed to unfair reporting practices, but most news organizations don’t announce their biases so publicly.”

So the Trump administration appropriately hit back at the Bloomberg decision.

“Since they have declared their bias so openly, the Trump campaign will no longer credential representatives of Bloomberg News for rallies or other campaign events,” Parscale said. “We will determine whether to engage with individual reporters or answer inquiries from Bloomberg News on a case-by-case basis.”

How can anyone in good conscience blame them?

Kathy Kiely, a former editor at Bloomberg News, says she resigned after receiving similar instructions from the agency in 2016, when Bloomberg was also mulling a presidential run, according to CNN. And one can imagine that any decent reporter would have a problem with that directive.

“The same sort of directions were given, only it was not yet an official campaign, but I felt that that wasn’t ethical, and it was just an untenable situation for me as the assigning editor to be in,” said Kiely. “Unfortunately, they’ve had four years to think about this, and they haven’t come up with a better solution. I’m really sorry to see this.”

Ethics isn't completely dead in journalism.

Kiely them made a joke and called the press “a public trust”  insisting that “most people who own news organizations understand” that they aren’t designed to serve the owners, but rather to serve the general public.

Nobody laughed.


Please consider following this blog and visit the ads on this page.   You can also see my other blog on the Times of Israel.





Tweet

Marianne Williamson wants a 'Department of Peace' if she become POTUS

Is Marianne Williamson the antithesis of President Trump or simply a love-raging, stone-clutching lunatic whose goal as president would be to teach China, Russia and North Korea the words to "Kumbaya"? Is it possible that all she is saying is "give peace a chance?"

Williamson has called for a "Department of Peace" during her Monday night appearance on "The Late Show."  This nearly brought tears to the eyes of fellow leftist and the show's host Stephen Colbert.

Colbert asked Williamson, author of "Politics of Love" if she would order others to "kill our enemies" as POTUS, to which she replied "absolutely." She would kill the crap out of them.

"I think that when you take an oath of office of the president of the United States, part of that oath means that you are commander in chief," Williamson explained correctly to the simple studio audience. "But I think if you're going to talk about peace, you can't just back up into peace... My critique of our national security agenda is not a critique of the military. It's a critique of the politicians who have based our national security agenda as much on short-term profit maximization for defense contractors as it has on any agenda for creating peace. When was the last time you heard a politician talking about peace on this planet in 20 years? That's why I want a Department of Peace."

So what she's saying is, we only build up our military to enrich the pockets of defense contractors, not to actually defend the nation against foreign threats.

Colbert recalled a conversation he had listened to between former American diplomat Richard Holbrooke and stoner musician Willie Nelson where Nelson asked, "'Why don't we have a Department of Peace?'" To which Holbrooke responded, "'Willie, we do. It's called the State Department. It's just not used that way.'"

Williamson knocked the current budget for peace building agencies, which she said gets less than $1 billion of the $40 billion State Department budget.

The "Late Show" host then pointed out how she had the podium at the far end of the debate stage last month and asked Williamson if she felt "marginalized" because they put the more popular Democrats, those with the most support, in the middle since it makes  more sense.

"My placement on the podium is the least of of the ways that I feel marginalized in this election," Williamson responded. "But I understand how it works and I understand that there's this sort of political media industrial complex. [She was being totally serious when she called it the 'media industrial complex'.] And last time it was 'It has to be Bernie [Sanders] and this time it's 'Oh, it can be any of these four or five.' And I have a problem with that. I challenge the idea that only people whose careers have been entrenched for decades in the limitations of the mindset that drove us into this ditch that they're the only ones we should consider qualified to take us out of the ditch."

How can you not love this woman? She's a little verbose, a little cutesy and a whole lot Love Boat on steroids.

The presidential longshot dismissed the idea that the "safe choice" in someone like former Vice President Joe Biden since it could be "the most dangerous thing we could possibly do." That's because Biden needs a reminder to tie his shoes, much less run a country.

"I think that when we think of political qualifications today, we should expand our sense of what those qualifications are," Williamson blathered on. "A political qualification today should include political vision, it should include moral certitude, it should include the capacity to move groups of people, large groups of people towards a common goal, a common vision, a law for democracy and a law for our world and a love for our planet."

Williamson's political vision, outside of frequent hugs and perhaps drugs, is unclear.


Please consider following this blog and feel free to click on the ads on this page. It costs nothing, and may just save your life. Or not.





Tweet

Hillary's hoping for the deplorable vote in 2020

She's serious--no, seriously, she isn't pulling our chains. Former first lady, former senator, former secretary of state and two-time loser in presidential elections, Hillary Rotten Clinton is leaving the proverbial door open for another run at become "THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAAAAA!!!

The first time she ran, the country decided they would rather have a guy who never ran a business or held a real job other than a first-term senator and "community organizer" [aka: socialist] in the White House than her.

The second time she ran, she lost to a reality TV star, former real estate developer, and a crass, super narcissistic guy with zero political creds.

In spite of her miserable failures, proving that she is perhaps the worst possible candidate one can imagine, she might want to try for the "three's a charm" notion. She might, however, be up against tough competition from Spartacus, Harris, Beto, Oprah, Baldwin, Cuban and Kid Rock.

Over the weekend, Hillary was asked by Recode's Kara Swisher during a Q&A, Do you want to run again?" She answered, "No, no," then added, "I'd like to be president."

Sounds like she doesn't want to run for president--she wants to be anointed president.

Then the "third time a charm" hopeful couldn't curb her ambition saying "there's going to be so much work to be done" if a Democrat can win in 2020. "The work would be work that I feel very well prepared for having been in the Senate for eight years, having been a diplomat in the State Department," she said, leaving out how she failed miserably in the latter, allowing four Americans to die in Benghazi.

"I'm not even going to even think about it until we get through this November 6th election about what's going to happen after that," she witch said.

But like all politicians, she refused to say if she's in or not. "I'm not even going to even think about it until we get through this November 6th election about what's going to happen after that," Bill Clinton's wife said.

Hillary lost to Trump with an Electoral College landslide 304-227 going to the "Orange Team." But like a puss pimple on a posterior, she didn't go away and blamed everybody but herself for her suck-worthy loss. She even wrote a book [or likely had someone write it for her] titled "What Happened." 

She can't even guess.

One of Clinton's detestable longtime aides, Philippe Reines, told Politico earlier this month that there is a "not zero" chance that she'll run, proving what a human puss pimple sounds like who's trying to sound cool

There is a possibility that the Democratic Party will keep pushing Hillary for president until she's no longer able to toilet herself.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

"Aunty" Maxine Waters may run in 2020

Speaking before engaging her brain

If she runs in 2020 she'll probably need a walker to help her because she'll be 81-years-very-old. But don't count Maxine Waters out yet--she's just crazy enough to run for the presidency and there are plenty of liberals crazy enough to vote for the California congresswoman.

I know she'll get the Antifa and Black Lives Matter vote.

"Auntie" Maxine appears to be speculating while expectorating and plans an appearance in the early presidential primary state of New Hampshire on Sunday.

Waters is the perfect liberal candidate for the Democrats. She has been labeled one of the most corrupt members of congress. So corrupt that even Hillary Clinton would be proud.

"According to an invitation obtained by WMUR from Democratic sources, Waters will be in the state on July 23 for the picnic to be held at the Miller Farm in New Durham," WMUR reported, where she will schmooze with the Strafford County Democratic Committee.

Waters is one of President Trump's harshest attackers with a new conspiracy theory every day it seems. She, like Hillary, have gone after Trump supporters and even called some of them "scumbags," a word that used to get one's mouth washed out with soap.

Like Al Sharpton, Waters plays the race card as a lazy substitute for thinking and coming up with actual policy ideas. Only in Sharpton's case, it has made him a rich racist. 

In Waters' case, corruption has made her a rich racist.

I sincerely hope she runs in 2020. She better soup up that walker.


Tweet