Bourrage de crâne.
Annoyingly anti-white, misandrist, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, PC, pro-homosexual, post-Zinnite shills for physicalism.
Watching Doctor Who on BBC America.
"Wet brain, dry brain"?
Marine Le Pen is a French nationalist, a throwback who rejects the eclipse of both the ideal of nationalism and the pre-eminence of the nation-state in Europe.
And she is a pro-labor, pro-welfare state nationalist.
Were it not for her nationalism, or were the year 1940, she would serve well as a moderate French socialist.
But given the chance she would undo the EU, undermine NATO, close France to immigrants and refugees, and perhaps hand certain countries back to Russia with a shrug.
Macron is a standard issue center-right politician who rejects nationalism and whose patriotism is not a rejection of the growing significance of the European Union.
Given the chance, he would harm the position of the French working class.
But he would support the EU and NATO, and be less hostile to immigration and refugees.
France is the only country in Europe where nationalist, populist parties are not also opposed to the welfare and regulatory state and enemies of working people.
What outcome would be better for America?
The defeat of Le Pen.
A post-nationalist, united Europe is better for us as regards global security and as regards its effects on our domestic politics.
We don't need anybody pouring gasoline on the fires of tribalism and identity politics.
We need to strengthen, not fray, the ties that bind together the American people.
Russia has an ugly history of persecution of the Witnesses, going back to Stalinist times.
Once a KGB thug, always a KGB thug.
After 16 years of war, the country is a wreck and the Taliban are far from beaten.
They, al-Qaeda, and ISIS operate freely and the Taliban control or contest about a third of the country.
Are we merely assuming it was a government attack?
Is Nikki Haley assuming that and that the Russians knew about it in advance?
So many in America have been itching to smite Assad, and for a major clash with Putin.
Even more than GW itched to take out Saddam.
Why are we forcing such brinksmanship over this fetish about gas?
She called for attacks to make all Assad's airfields unusable.
Trump did not even make one of them so.
The Tomahawk is the wrong weapon for that.
It's not clear he did any serious damage with that $30 + million headline changer.
And let's hope she is not the nominee in 2020.
Or ever again.
So, who's up, I wonder?
Hillary's bomb-throwing, liberal feminist interventionism is and has been wrong, all across the Muslim world.
There is no prospect of a sufficiently good outcome to justify us doing anything about Syria, in particular, beyond crushing ISIS.
Well, they certainly pushed Russia-gate off the front pages.
And they're definitely not palling around with Putin, are they?
$ 30 + million spent on that Tomahawk attack and Assad did not lose the use of even one airfield, for even one day.
And not a single tweet to show us Bozo's true face, his leering, obscene, and repulsive clown face, in all this time.
Maybe somebody has handcuffed the real Trump and thrown him in the basement.
The guy in front of the cameras, first seen announcing the strike, is an imposter, put out there by Javanka.
And has there really been any change in US policy concerning Assad?
In truth, isn't Bozo's fake presidency an interregnum between real presidents, during which the government is continuing on automatic pilot, following it's last, previously set course?
Much as the empire would have done, had Caligula been, for a few years, succeeded by his horse.
President Bozo, aka Incitatus the First.
If the point had only been to exterminate the Jews, that is what they would have done.
But that is not what they did.
What they did included that, but also and with unmistakable intent, politically and socially institutionalized sadism on a vast scale.
Extermination was not the capstone, but the end, of the Reich's orgy of cruelty toward the Jews.
Eugen Kogon, The Theory and Practice of Hell.
See Article 1 of the Constitution.
States have representation in the House proportionate to their numbers, but nothing in the article baldly prevents their being elected at large, or by voting for statewide party lists.
The talking head on MSNBC said Obama wouldn't let him set foot in the White House.
He has recently put in place a severe and bloody crackdown not only on Islamists but also on some in the secular opposition.
The crackdown routinely defies every guarantee against executive lawlessness found in the US constitution, the "civil liberties" human rights organizations defend.
I have the distinct impression Sisi's government has less republican legitimacy than Putin's, and no democratic legitimacy at all, as it originated in a military coup against the democratically elected government of Morsi.
Sisi's government apparently sponsors levels of illegality and state violence that exceed those of the Russian Republic.
Many have warned regime change in Syria would make things worse.
But that is the Russian and Iranian view, and the Russia scandals have made policies that seem to agree with Russia toxic.
As the report points out, the Trump policy is actually the same as Obama's and Kerry's.
Regime change was not their goal and they were already cooperating with the Russians about Syria.