Sanctimonious faux conservatives have been exposed as useful idiots

By Kurt Schlichter

You know all that insufferable babbling and crying about “principles” we had to endure from you Never Trump Konservative Ken Dolls? Your rending of your cheap suits, your 180s over classic GOP policies because The Donald actually tried to enact them, and your mortifying blubbering to suddenly sympathetic hosts on MSNBC and CNN about how awful our President is? With your sad, drawn faces and high-pitched voices, you True Conservatives of Conservatism™, you Keepers of the Flame of Conservativeness resisted the coming of Donald Trump (and those who supported him) because…because…

 Because that’s not who we are…

 Because we’re better than that…

 Because…our principles!

Our principles. Yeah, right. Well, it was all a crock, a con, a grift by a bunch of displaced Beltway strivers furious that the marks – that’s us Normals – wised up to their scam, played the players, and sent them packing.

Principles? You laughed uproariously at Sean Hannity’s confidential information being revealed for no good reason, just as you laughed at President Trump when federal agents marched into his lawyer’s office to steal privileged documents as part of the shameful collusion farce you’ve been applauding. Your principles didn’t stop you from supporting an effort to undo the results of an election that left you out in the cold.

What would the Founders say? Probably, “Stop trying to hang around with us.”

Where are your principles in the face of the gross injustices of the last few days? A federal judge who was nearly appointed Bill Clinton’s attorney general and who officiated at Soros’s wedding ordered Hannity’s information disclosed, but that was cool with you. After all, Sean Hannity is so…oh well, I never!

Principles that depend on who is asserting them aren’t principles. They are poses.

If you actually adhered to them, your principles would have you shrieking, not cheering. A bunch of Hillary-donating feds should not be allowed to randomly pillage through privileged materials looking for a crime. No, the crime-fraud exception does not mean that the feds can just take all your stuff, read through it, and decide if some happens to fall into that narrow exception and leak the rest. But hey, why let some principles get in the way of a good laugh at the expense of one of those Trump people?

Gosh, it’s almost like your talk of principles was just…talk.

The government is mocking due process, shattering attorney-client privilege, and undermining the rule of freakin’ law, but you’re giggling like teen girls at a One Direction reunion concert, only you’re less butch. Where are your principles now that invoking them helps someone you don’t like?

Missing in action, like Bill Kristol and Max Boot when it comes to the wars they so eagerly advocate.

You and your principles. Your only principle is getting the president out of power so you can weasel back in.

You don’t hate Donald Trump because he feels he can ignore your glorious principles o’ convenience. You hate Donald Trump because he feels he can ignore you.

And same with the rest of the Normals, those of us who had to spend decades listening to your excuses and lies until we noticed that the cruise ship captains of the conservative elite had been treading water. Oh yeah, every election you promised to fight, and after every election all you did was fail. But you had a good gig, as long as the bipartisan elite grift was in effect. When the GOP won, you were the in-crowd, and you raked in donations and media hits with the promise that you would use the power we gave you to make real conservative change.

But that never seemed to happen.

And when the GOP lost, well, then you were in opposition, and so you raked in the dough and attention talking about how you would fight once we put you back into power.

It was a pretty good scam, that is, until we got tired of being lied to and installed a disruptor into office. And what we hired him to disrupt was your sweet little gig.

We rejected you. Us unwashed, uncivilized, non-DC/NY-living nobodies rejected you, and now you can’t even get your phone calls returned from that 24-year old guy in a MAGA hat down at the Old Executive Office Building. You’re a nobody, a punchline, writing articles nobody reads for magazines no one remembers.

It gnaws at you.

But you still have your principles, your precious principles, and the liberals will let you act out your Never Trump charade on their shows and in their pages because it’s helpful to them to have little Mr. Helper playing Sad Conservative Has-been Against Trump. But they don’t respect you. And they don’t like you. And when they are finished with you, it’s back in the gimp box.

You think you’re Michael Corleone Conservatives, pulling the strings, plotting to take power. But you’re really just Fredocons. You’re not smart, you can’t handle things, and you may want respect, but don’t hold your breath.

Still, you have your wonderful principles. Congratulations. And if you close your eyes and try real hard, you unaccomplished mediocrities can imagine that you aren’t just lying there on your bellies at the feet of your liberal overlords. But you are. Maybe if you beg, if you obey, if you please them by trashing the people you used to pretend to champion, perhaps your masters will drop a scrap off the table for you to gobble up.

Here’s a hit on NBC with Chuck Todd. Be ready with a bon mot about how Donald Trump is a moral cancer.

Here’s a chance to write for the New York Times. Be careful to stay within bounds, though, or else.

Here’s an invitation to a little cocktail soiree in Georgetown. Just make sure you shake your head in disgust when the other partygoers talk about those racist hillbillies and science-hating Christians with their guns and Jesus and masculinity.

You’ve talked and talked and talked about principles, but as James Comey and Robert Mueller and your gal Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit undermined every principle this country was founded on, all you did was clutch pearls about how Trump is icky. This country is in real danger of breaking apart, of actual conflict, but all you can think of is recovering your cheesy little seat on the Beltway bench.

No one’s fooled. And no one cares. Which ought to scare the hell out of you. Because when the liberals figure out that you have zero credibility with us real conservatives, you’ll stop being their useful idiot. You’ll just be a plain old idiot.

America’s self-satisfied ‘Me Generation’ has abandoned the anti-war movement

Members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War march around the Capitol here, as part of their week-long demonstration against the Vietnam War. © Bettmann / Getty Images

By Robert Bridge

Once upon a war, Americans waged large-scale protests against overseas military adventures, even helping to stop the Vietnam War. Today, the spirit of dissent has vanished, replaced by intensely personal issues.

The first months of 2018 demonstrated that the protest movement in the United States is alive and well. In January, millions of women – energized by the Hollywood-inspired #MeToo movement – took to the streets of America to voice their displeasure at Donald Trump’s first tumultuous year in the White House, as well as sexual discrimination against females.

In March, another protest rocked America as thousands of protesters – moved by the Parkland high-school shooting, which left 17 people dead in Florida – assembled in Washington, DC in a call for stricter gun control. In light of the disturbing frequency of shooting sprees in the US, it would be wrong to question the importance of such a movement. Yet, however tragic is the sight of innocent Americans being slaughtered by some deranged shooter, those deaths pale in comparison to the number of innocent people being killed in foreign lands as a direct result of US military incursions, many of them absolutely illegal.

So, where were the protests as illicit regime-change operations – in places like Iraq, Libya and now Syria – were systematically destroying the lives of innocent people?

Where was the march on Washington, DC when Barack Obama, in the twilight of his bloodstained presidency, was dropping massive amounts of munitions on numerous countries, all of them in the Muslim world?

“In President Obama’s last year in office, the United States dropped 26,172 bombs in seven countries,” wrote Micah Zenko of the Council for Foreign Relations. “Most (24,287) were dropped in Iraq and Syria.”

How many innocent people – men, women, children – had their lives snuffed out violently and prematurely from such a cavalier attitude towards war, we will never know, nor did many people in the United States challenge their leaders on that question.

This apathetic attitude on the part of so many Americans to this wave of death and destruction against foreigners in foreign lands suggests that any semblance of an anti-war consciousness has left the building. For all intents and purposes, the Democrats and Republicans are essentially of the same mind when it comes to the question of war (in short, it is deemed an altogether positive event, so long as few Americans die). In fact, the reason the ‘liberals’ as well as factions inside of the Republican Party despise the ‘maverick’ Donald Trump – who, thanks to his own personal wealth, did not need much outside donations (bribe money) to finance his presidential campaign – is because he threatened to end military entanglements overseas, thus depriving the military industrial complex of untold amounts of blood money.

For anyone who doubts that statement, consider how the liberal media suddenly and sickeningly became Trump’s best friend after he unleashed a Tomahawk missile attack against Syria’s Shayrat airbase on April 7, 2017 – the first time the US military had attacked Syria’s pro-government forces.

Fareed Zakaria, a political commentator with CNN, the US news channel with arguably the worst opinion of the US president, glowed in the after burn of that illicit missile launch against a sovereign state.

“I think Donald Trump became president of the United States last night,” Zakaria enthused, hardly able to control his jingoistic juices. “I think this was actually a big moment.”

Not to be outdone, MSNBC anchor Brian Williams, shaking his pom-poms for the defense sector, actually called video footage of the missile strike “beautiful.”

“We see these beautiful pictures at night from the decks of these two US Navy vessels in the eastern Mediterranean,” Williams said. “I am tempted to quote the great Leonard Cohen: ‘I am guided by the beauty of our weapons.’ And, they are beautiful pictures of fierce armaments making, what is for them, a brief flight over to this airfield.”

Only at the end of that psychotic soliloquy did Williams venture to ask: “What did they hit?” Gee, maybe a school? A hospital? Apparently, that was of secondary consideration for the journalist war booster, which strikes me as the ugliest oxymoron of all time.

With this sort of sycophantic reporting and analysis behind every “beautiful” missile launch, is it any wonder the American anti-war movement is nowhere to be found?

There is a real temptation to compare the current state of apathy and indifference of our day to the raucous Vietnam War-era when the streets and, more importantly, the universities became the sight of historic showdowns against the government. The high point of that protest movement came on May 4, 1970 when students at Kent State University came under fire by members of the Ohio National Guard during a mass anti-war gathering. Four students were killed and nine wounded in the melee. Eventually, hundreds of university campuses across the country joined the movement that witnessed violent and non-violent protests involving more than four million students.

Compare that impassioned anti-war spirit, which seems right at home with institutions of higher learning, to the current sad state of universities. Today, students are actually breaking out in violent protest whenever some controversial guest speaker visits their campus to deliver a speech on a topic they find offensive. With this sort of aversion to healthy debate and discussion, it is almost impossible to imagine the university being the source of an anti-war awareness any longer.

There is also a bit of a helpless feeling, especially following the attack on Iraq in 2003 by US-led forces and despite massive anti-war protests, that the people are powerless to effect any real change.

“What’s missing is any sense of connection to the government, any sense that it’s ‘ours’ or that we the people matter,” Tom Engelhard wrote. “In its place… is the deepest sort of pessimism and cynicism about a national security state and war-making machine beyond our control. And why protest what you can’t change?”

Admittedly, much of the indifference to these military adventures could stem from the new nature of warfare. In the Vietnam era, for example, much of the fighting was done on the ground, in the jungles, and many more US soldiers were dying. At the same time, a military draft threatened to call up thousands of new recruits from the general population. In other words, many Americans felt a real threat, a real reason, to protest the war. Much like the Vietnamese, their lives were at stake.

The tragic irony is that today, with so much media and social media at our fingertips, we are better informed than ever. Yet we are discovering that the ability to access information, with the possibility of holding the ‘powers that be’ to account for their actions, does not necessarily mean that it will happen. In fact, most people today, especially the youth, are so overloaded with information that what our military is doing overseas seems to be the least of their concern. After all, there are so many Facebook posts to check, so many selfies to snap, so many messages to tweet. And anyways, war is something that happens to foreign people, probably some terrorists, who probably deserve what they are getting. After all, America, the ‘exceptional nation,’ would never attack innocent people for an imperialist agenda. Right?


Why is CNN the only “news” network allowed in U.S. airports after being caught repeatedly pushing fake news?


By Natural News

If you’re like most Americans, you’ve been stuck for hours at a time in an airport waiting for your plane to arrive. And like every one of them, you, too, were inundated with “news” — such as it is — from only one provider: CNN.

You may not have realized it but the Cable News Network has a ubiquitous presence in U.S. airports around the country, meaning that airport audiences are captive audiences. Only Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Reich Minister of Propaganda, had a more captive audience.

But thanks to the network’s hard-Left turn, many are beginning to question the lack of news diversity, shall we say, in airports across the land.

As Fox News noted, the origins of this arrangement are fairly innocuous:

The CNN Airport network dates back to when CNN was known for straightforward news programming — and has been a fixture at airports since before competitors MSNBC and Fox News even existed.

But those days have changed and CNN — like the rest of the ‘mainstream’ establishment outlets and broadcasters (save for Fox News) — are no longer honest, unbiased purveyors of the news. Even if you think Fox News really isn’t “fair and balanced” (I do), you have to admit that CNN and the others all have a similar Left-lurching, anti-Trump, anti-conservative perspective.

As such, notes Fox News, critics are beginning to ask why busy travelers should be force-fed only CNN content, which is increasingly less like “news” coverage and more liberal ideology as they linger at airport gates and in airport shops and bars. Some travelers have even begun online petition drives to remove CNN content from airports and replaced with “neutral” news programming.

In an interview, Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor told Fox News that CNN has even gotten to be more partisan than MSNBC since President Donald J. Trump was elected — and that’s no easy feat. As such, travelers ought to have the option of watching something else.

“How are airports justifying the idea of bombarding captive viewers with content many of them oppose? Sadly, almost any outlet is fairer now than CNN,” Gainor said.

Fox News noted that CNN isn’t forced on travelers because airports seek to inundate their flying customers with liberal propaganda. It’s force-fed to travelers because of money.

CNN pays airports to show its channel; a number of airport hubs have agreements with the network requiring CNN to pay for the televisions and required cable infrastructure. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, airports also get “up to six minutes each hour to promote the airport or local attractions” as part of the tit-for-tat deal.

“CNN Airport covers the costs related to the TVs and related infrastructure, provides programming specifically geared for airports, and pays us for the opportunity to be in our facility,” a representative from Minneapolis-Saint Paul International told Fox News, while Miami International’s spokesperson simply pointed the network to a document proving that CNN is more than willing to pay the most for access.

And not all of the content CNN Airport shows is news: There is weather, various entertainment programs, and even some live sports (though every time fly it’s all news, all the time).

Also, because CNN signs long-term contracts with airports, the network is able to curate content seen by travelers whether they approve of it or not. For instance, the Miami airport signed a six-year contract with CNN that promises “a maximum annual guarantee of $150,000” that could be adjusted every year to make sure the deal is the same as with other similar airports.

Still, the audience is captive for certain, meaning news diversity is less and less likely.

“Airports feel like a lesser version of hell with dirty seats, overpriced food and propaganda posing as news on CNN,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson said recently.

Truth bomb.

(THIS IS WHY THEY WANT OUR GUNS AMERICA) – MSNBC Guest: Trump Will Win 2020 In A Landslide If He’s Not ‘Removed’ From Office (VIDEO)

The folks at MSNBC are pretty depressed about Trump’s excellent chances for reelection in 2020. Frequent guest Donny Deutsch recently said Trump will win in 2020 in a landslide unless he is removed from office. This explains a lot about the left’s behavior, doesn’t it?

The Washington Free Beacon reported:

MSNBC Guest Predicts Trump Will Be Reelected in Landslide if He Isn’t Removed From Office

Deutsch then lambasted the “absurdity” and “obscenity” of the way the Trump administration has functioned, but Sirius XM radio host Karen Hunter said the administration’s problems will not matter to voters.

“We can have these conversations all day long, and all the punditry can be absolutely correct, but it’s not going to show up in the voting booths,” Hunter said.

Wallace pushed back on Hunter’s contention by mentioning Trump’s low approval ratings, but Hunter and Deutsch argued that it didn’t matter because of the loyalty of Trump’s supporters.

“His approval rating is at an all-time low, and yet the people who support him still support him, and they think this is all a hoax and this is a scam,” Hunter said.

Wallace talked about voting Trump out of office, but Deutsch and Hunter maintained that Trump must be removed before 2020.

“I’ll go one better than you,” Deutsch told Hunter. “And this scares me. If he is not taken out of office—”…

“He will win again in a landslide,” Deutsch finished, talking about Trump in 2020. “Because people vote with their pocketbooks, and that’s what’s scary to me.”

Watch the video:

They still just don’t get it.



Compares POTUS to a slave owner

Steve Watson | – MARCH 13, 2018

Trump derangement syndrome persists at MSNBC, with one panelist claiming that the President’s rhetoric is so extreme that he may start using openly racist terminology at the next rally.

Appearing Monday on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Jason Johnson, a far left political editor said Trump was “half a rally away from just using the ‘N-word.”

Johnson was referring to Trump calling Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) a “low IQ individual” at a rally in Pennsylvania this past Saturday.

“He is half a rally away from just using the ‘N-word.’ It’s that basic.” a deranged sounding Johnson exclaimed.

“He is half a rally away from just calling somebody the ‘N-word’ and then everyone is going to pretend that they’re shocked.” Johnson continued.

The panelist then claimed that “Everybody on ‘The Apprentice’ is going to say he used it all the time. That’s what he does.”

“Backstage, yes” host Chris Matthews agreed, as if the claims are true.

Referring specifically to the ongoing feud between Waters and Trump, Johnson claimed, without presenting any proof whatsoever, that the President “has a hostility and anger towards women of color.”

Johnson then suggested that unless Trump has a person of color serving him like a slave, he acts with disdain toward them.

“He’s Calvin Candie,” Johnson said, explaining to Matthews that the character was ‘the slave owner from Django’.

“That’s basically Trump,” Johnson said, adding “If she she’s not diamond and silk if she’s not Alma Rosa I can’t believe this person is talking to me.”

Johnson posted the full segment to his YouTube channel:

The war of words between Trump and Waters has been perpetuated by the Democrat, who calls for Trump to be removed from office practically every time she opens her mouth, claiming he is virulently racist.

Waters claimed that that Trump latest comments were also racist, and was backed up by The Washington Post, which published a column suggesting Trump likes to attack black women who challenge him, and there there is a historical precedent of racists linking low IQ to people of color.

Other far-left commentators made the same argument:

Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 11.08.28 AM

Of course, Maxine Waters might just actually be dumb.



“Is it possible that the Republican chairman of the House Intel Committee has been compromised?”

Steve Watson | – JANUARY 30, 2018

An MSNBC analyst seriously asked two Democratic guests Monday whether Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, has ‘been compromised’ and become a ‘Russian agent’ in the wake of his vote to release the memo that is said to outline gross FBI misconduct as part of an opposition campaign against President Trump.

John Heilemann, a regular MSNBC talking head asked Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) “Is it possible that the Republican chairman of the House Intel Committee has been compromised by the Russians?”

Admitting it was a “ridiculous and absurd” question, Heilemann added “Is it possible that we actually have a Russian agent running the House Intel Committee on the Republican side?”

A stunned Murphy clearly couldn’t believe that Heilemann was seriously posing the question, replying “I-I-I-I hope that’s not the case,” and adding “I certainly have no information to suggest that it is.”

Nevertheless, the dismissal didn’t deter the MSNBC analyst.

“Doesn’t his behavior speak of that, though?” Heilemann asked, continuing “I mean, I’m not the first person who’s raised this. He’s behaving like someone who’s been compromised, and there are people in the intelligence community and others with great expertise in this area who look at him and say, ‘That guy’s been compromised.’”

Murphy again dismissed the notion and answered that Republicans simply voted along party lines in support of President Trump.

Far from leaving the suggestion there, simmering in it’s own ridiculousness, Heilemann brought it to an absurd boil later on in the broadcast, asking Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) if he thinks Nunes is a Russian agent.

“Congressman Nunes, your chairman, it is suggested not by me but by people who follow these matters closely, could he possibly be someone who has been compromised by the Russians?” Heilemann asked.

“Is that something that you consider a possibility?” he followed up.

Swalwell didn’t take the bait, and instead suggested that Nunes had been “compromised by the White House.”

“He certainly seems to be willing to risk the republic to protect the president, to risk the rule of law to help the president’s case in the Russia investigation,” he said.

This is the level that MSNBC has stooped to in its political coverage. It has hosts asking elected Democrats if they think ‘muh Russians’ are secretly controlling Republican representatives, presumably as part of a giant conspiracy to stop Hillary Clinton becoming President and installing Trump as Putin’s puppet.

*(WHO CARES IF THESE 2 HOOD RATS DON’T SHOW UP?) – Democrat Reps. Maxine Waters, John Lewis to Skip Trump’s State of the Union


House Democrats Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) announced Friday that they will not attend President Trump’s first State of the Union address this month.

Waters and Lewis each made separate appearances on MSNBC to explain that they are skipping the president’s annual address because he allegedly called Haiti, El Salvador, and several African countries “shithole” nations.

“Why would I take my time to go and sit and listen to a liar?” Waters told MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes. “Someone who lies in the face of facts, someone who can change their tune day in and day out. What does he have to say that I would be interested in?”

“I don’t trust him, I don’t appreciate him, and I wouldn’t waste my time … listening to what he has to say,” she continued. “He does not deserve my attention.”

Lewis also announced that he would be skipping the address, accusing Trump of having racist sympathies after reports on the alleged remarks surfaced Thursday.

“At this junction, I do not plan to attend the State of the Union,” Lewis told MSNBC’s Katy Tur. “I cannot, in all good conscience, be in a room with what he has said about so many Americans. I just cannot do it. I wouldn’t be honest with myself.”

“I think the words and his action[s] tend to speak like one who knows something about being a racist. It must be in his DNA, in his makeup,” he added.

Waters and Lewis are the latest House Democrats to boycott Trump’s address after Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) announced last week that he would stay home during the State of the Union to avoid Trump’s “divisive” speech.

“Rather than listening to yet another destructive and divisive speech by Trump, I will not attend this year’s annual address to Congress,” he said in a statement. “Instead, like I did during Trump’s Inauguration, I will be working here at home listening to Oregonians about what they think about the State of the Union.”

Other Democrat lawmakers who are not planning to skip the State of the Union entirely are reportedly plotting ways to protest the speech, such as wearing black to show their support for victims of sexual misconduct.