I Didn't Say It ...

Stephen Colbert, The Late Show host, revealing that CBS AKA Complete Bull Shit, refused to air his interview with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico due to bullying by Cankles’ FCC:

“You know, you know who is not one of my guests tonight? That's Texas State Representative James Talarico. He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network's lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast. Then, then I was told in some uncertain terms that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on. And because my network clearly doesn't want us to talk about this, let's talk about this. So, you might have heard of this thing called the Equal Time Rule, okay? It's an old FCC rule that applies only to radio and broadcast television, not cable or streaming, that says if a show has a candidate on during an election, they have to have all that candidate's opponents on as well. It's the FCC's most time-honored rule, right after no nipples at the Super Bowl. There's long been an exception for this rule, an exception for news interviews and talk show interviews with politicians. Now, that's crucial. How else were voters supposed to know back in ‘92 that Bill Clinton sucked at saxophone? But, on January 21st of this year, a letter was released by FCC Chairman and smug bowling pin Brendan Carr. In this letter, Carr said he was thinking about dropping the exception for talk shows because he said some of them were motivated by partisan purposes. Well, sir, you're chairman of the FCC, so FCC you. Let's just call this what it is. [Cankles’] administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about [Cankles] on TV because all [Cankles] does is watch TV. Okay? He's like a toddler with too much screen time. He gets cranky and then drops a load in his diapers. So, it's no surprise, it's no surprise that two of the people most affected by this threat are me and my friend Jimmy Kimmel. When this letter dropped, we both talked about the letter on air, and then later, Carr defended it like this: ‘If Kimmel or Colbert want to continue to do their programming, and they don't want to have to comply with this requirement, then they can go to a cable channel or podcast or a streaming service and that's fine.’ Great idea, man whose job is to regulate broadcast TV. Suggest everyone just leave broadcast TV. I can't interview James Talarico. I can't show any pictures of James Talarico. I'm not even sure I can say the words James Talarico. But what I can show you is what we always show when we have to pull material at the last minute. This tasteful nude of Brendan Carr!”

Thankfully, he did show us nekkid Carr.

CBS tried to spin this as a misunderstanding and rushed out a legalistic statement insisting the show had never been “prohibited” from airing the interview. It read like classic corporate damage control from a company that folded fast under a [Cankles] packed FCC and only found its courage once the backlash hit.​

And on Tuesday night Colbert came onstage with receipts literally in hand, holding up the CBS statement and mocking it as “crap” and “a surprisingly small piece of paper considering how many butts it is trying to cover,” while reading out how he had been told he could not have Talarico on or even talk about not having him on. Colbert blasted the [Cankles’] FCC and commissioner Brendan Carr as politically “motivated by partisan purposes” and framed the pulled interview as censorship from the top.

This is a stand for Freedom of Speech y’all, and Colbert is manning the front lines.

photo

Kristian Berg Harpviken, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, responding to Cankles’ extended tantrum about not receiving a Nobel Peace Prize:

“We see it as important that as many people as possible understand how it is that we work and what the principles are. Whether those lobbying for the prize are receptive to that or not is really beyond our control.”

Oh Cankles, you can whine and moan and send out your Flying Monkeys, but you are the furthest things from peace that has ever trod the Earth.

And that’s saying something.

photo

Gretchen Carlson, former Fox News anchor, on Pammy Jo Bondi’s epic meltdown at being questing by Congress last week:

“To use the Dow reaching 50,000 to cover up for this massive sex ring is despicable. I was so upset that somebody would try to deflect what these women and children have gone through to try and pump up [Cankles] is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen.”

Bondi is a lapdog, a bitch, a puppet, a pawn and a criminal co-conspirator. I cannot wait until they come for her.

photo

George Orwell, perhaps forewarning the world about Pamela Jo Bondi in his novel 1984:

“She had not a thought in her head that was not a slogan, and there was no imbecility, absolutely none, that she was not capable of swallowing if the Party handed it out to her.”

It’s almost as if Orwell predicted Pamela Jo Bondi.

photo

Ted Lieu, California Democrat Congressman, showing the hypocrisy if the so-called Attorney General:

“Dear Attorney General Pam Bondi: since you creepily spied on the unredacted Epstein files I read, you know I read this one. Witness calls FBI’s national threats operations center and reports that a girl, who was later found dead, told him that [Candled] and Epstein raped her. When will the Justice Department interview this witness?”

But the Dow!!!!

He’s the greatest president ever!!!

We’re moving on from this!!!

photo

James Talarico, Democratic candidate for Senator from Texas, on the ICEstapo, Kristi Noem, and better ways to spend our money:

“ICE shot a mom in the face. ICE kidnapped a five-year-old boy. ICE executed Alex Pretti in the street in broad daylight. The agency is out of control. We have to impeach Kristi Noem. We’ve got to haul these masked men before congress so the world can see their faces. I would not vote to give this agency any more money. I would take that money and put it back into our healthcare where it belongs.”

Straight shooting common sense; no wondering what he means: he said it.

The DogKiller and her ICEstapo need to be held accountable.

photo

Barack Obama, former President of the United States, on Cankles’ racist post:

“They ask me about [his] latest ‘post.’ We could spend the whole day reacting to every buffoonish spectacle coming out of the White House, but that’s exactly what they want: for us to lose focus. Politics used to have a limit of shame. Today, it seems the strategy is simply to exhaust our capacity for astonishment. Don’t be distracted by the noise; watch what they are doing to your rights while you stare at the screen.”

Wise words, of course, because that’s what you get from Obama at every turn.

Turn off your phones and laptops and iPads and stand up and speak up and march up and and don’t get caught up in the deflection and, what is that other thing? Oh yeah … CAST A GODDAMNED VOTE!!

photo   

Arizona Votes For "Thought Police"

Last week Arizona GOP senators—who believe the resisters are being paid to protest, though they cannot say from whom or how much—voted to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad even if it hasn’t yet turned bad.

Free speech is on the ropes, y’all, because now police will be able to decide to arrest on the chance that maybe, the protest you are attending might, could, somehow, become violent.

Arizona’s SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws—which are now aimed at organized crime—to also include rioting, and this new law redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.

So, what that means, is that if you protest, even peacefully, you can be arrested because police think it might turn violent, and then the Arizona government can criminally prosecute you and seize your assets, and the assets of everyone who ever planned or participated, in a protest, to pay for any damage.

Look, I’ll make this queer: I am all for a protest; a march, a chant, a song, a dance, to highlight your frustration and anger is a good thing. Busting windows, stealing TVs, setting cars on fire is not a protest and those folks should be arrested and made to pay restitution. But if I’m at the protest and you arrest me and make me pay for something I didn’t do, well, that ain’t America, though it is _____’s America.

And Arizona Democratic Senator Steve Farley made an interesting argument about the flaws in this new law: what if the person who broke the window, or vandalized the store, and triggered the alleged riot, was not a member of the protestors, but someone from the other side?

Yup, how can you tell who did what and why, and how can you make anyone pay for something for which they are not responsible?

Democratic Senator Martin Quezada did acknowledge that, often, what’s planned as a peaceful demonstration can turn violent:

“When people want to express themselves as a group during a time of turmoil, during a time of controversy, during a time of high emotions, that’s exactly when people gather as a community. Sometimes they yell, sometimes they scream, sometimes they do go too far.’’

But, Quezada said, while everything that constitutes rioting is already a crime, ranging from assault to criminal damage, and those responsible can be individually prosecuted, the purpose of this new bill appears to be the First Amendment rights of people to demonstrate.

Republican Senator John Kavanagh, who is naturally for the bill, played up the claim that there are professional protestors at these events and that’s what the bill targets. But Kavanagh has no way of knowing if protestors are being paid and he has no proof that at any demonstration that’s taken place in this country since that fateful day in January when hate took the Oval, that anyone was paid to be there.

It’s FakeNews; but, many Republicans are goose-stepping along with Hair Furor and saying paid protesting does happen because without being paid, no one would protest the _____ White House.

Yeah, I know. And, here’s something even scarier; by including rioting into racketeering laws, this new bill allows police to arrest anyone even planning a protest or march.

Thought police, y’all; you plan a protest, you plan on committing vandalism or crimes.

And Kavanagh takes a cue from _____’s playbook by asking if you’d “rather stop a riot before it starts?”:

“Do you really want to wait until people are injuring each other, throwing Molotov cocktails, picking up barricades and smashing them through businesses in downtown Phoenix?”

Um, just because we march doesn’t mean we’re out to hurt anyone, or damage any business, and to make it more clear, using Kavanagh’s logic, shouldn’t we arrest anyone who has a gun because they might use it to kill someone?

I mean, are we going to be a country where you’re arrested for what you might do? Is that what the country will become under President ____? 

If it is, then I’ll be marching against it.

Arizona Capitol Times