From my steamy British girl friend:
A very attractive young speech therapist was getting absolutely nowhere with her Stammerer's Action Group.
She had tried every technique in the book, but still they stammered and stuttered.
Finally, totally exasperated, she said; "If any of you can tell me where you were born, without stuttering, I will have wild and passionate sex with you until your muscles ache and your eyes water."
The Englishman immediately piped up "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-irmingham", he said. "That's no use, Trevor" said the speech therapist, "Who's next?"
The Scotsman raised his hand and blurted out "G-g-g-g-g-g-gl-lasgow".
"That's no better either, Hamish." "Now, how about you, Paddy?"
The Irishman took a deep breath, counted to five and eventually blurted out; "London".
"Brilliant, Paddy! " said the speech therapist and immediately set about living up to her promise.
After 10 minutes of steamy sex, Paddy said; "d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d -d-erry."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is the current historical freezing temperatures caused by Global Warming? 10 Year Challenge .
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The White House generally attracts those who seek power. All too often they seek it for their own good, to be in a position to carry out their own views. Every once in a while there are those who truly seek to serve in a selfless manner but rarely has this proven to be the case.
Everyone seeking power has a goal in mind and we, the sheep, are often their victims. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://israelunwired.com/ben-
This opens another phase in the progressive radical's war of identity politics. Destroy education, weaken the family unit, attack those of religious faith, question citizen's Constitutional protections, create discord among the races, belittle whitey, re-introduce anti-Semitism and encourage socialism over capitalism. It is the enactment of the full circle goal of Alinsky's plan against democratic societies. (See 2 below.)
And finally: (skip ad:)
https://youtu.be/33i_BAhuiE0
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Duped again? (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One way for Trump to possibly get recalcitrant Democrats, who are under Schumer and Pelosi's thumbs to work with Trump is for him to open our borders and allow the illegal immigrants to enter as long as they pledge they will all move to California and New York.
I often am concerned that I have become radicalized because of the radicalization taking place before my very eyes. That said, I still believe I am clear eyed, rational, reasoned and justified . Anyone want to comment?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kamala moves further left so as to force the other radicals running to campaign in Venezuela, Russia and Cuba. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We have a perfect chance to arrest Chinese pilfering. (See 5 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hollywood Einsteins. (See 6 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Without President Trump Knowing, The White House Counsel Is Caving to Democrats on Judges
This is a terrible, terrible deal.
The White House Counsel, behind the President’s back, is trying to cut a deal that would put more progressives on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, presuming Democrats would then ease up on their objections to other judicial nominations.
After what happened to Brett Kavanaugh, it is insane that the White House would even consider working with Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris to put...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Can a new group save the Democratic Party for Israel?
By Jonathan Tobin
There are already too many Jewish organizations. But if there was ever a need for at least one more, then the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMI) would seem to fill the bill.
The DMI seeks to promote support for Israel among Democrats at a time when the party appears to be drifting away from the pro-Israel orbit. With so many of the most prominent and popular Democrats increasingly hostile to the Jewish state — and with polls showing the party's grassroots also at odds with Israel — the time had come for an effort to retrieve a situation that presents a genuine challenge to a bipartisan pro-Israel consensus. But the question for the group, which says it is well-funded and plans to play a key role in upcoming elections, is whether it can really speak for most Democrats.
A generation or two ago, such a development would have been unimaginable, as Democrats represented the lockstep pro-Israel party. It was Republicans who were divided about support for the Jewish state, while Democrats were the ones that Israel could count on. That changed as Republicans, led by figures like President Ronald Reagan, became increasingly united behind the pro-Israel coalition.
At the same time, many Democrats defected from the pro-Israel camp. The reasons for this are complex, but essentially it boils down to the rise of a left-wing faction that sees the world through an intersectional lens that views the Palestinian war on Israel as morally equivalent to the struggle for civil rights in America. Grassroots activists identified with the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
Many liberal Zionists also began to see the conflict in the Middle East as largely Israel's fault and started to oppose the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. That led to the creation of groups like J Street that claim to be pro-Israel, but also support pressure on Jerusalem to make concessions its democratically elected government opposes in the name of "saving it from itself."
In recent years, that debate has been supplanted by a new conflict. Openly anti-Zionist organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow have begun to steal J Street's thunder on the left as those who support Israel's elimination gain visibility and undeserved respectability.
Not surprisingly, that's had a huge impact on the Democratic Party.
When President Obama engaged in a policy of more "daylight" between the United States and Israel, few Democrats protested (while the J Street crowd cheered). And when his administration engaged in appeasement of Iran via a nuclear deal that empowered and enriched a nation dedicated to Israel's destruction, most Democrats, including otherwise stalwart supporters of the Jewish state, loyally went along with him, blaming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a fight that Obama had picked.
Part of the problem is that Jewish Democrats have been focused more on opposing pro-Israel Republicans than on confronting the enemies of the Jewish state within their own ranks. They've disingenuously claimed that Republicans are trying to use Israel as a wedge issue and destroy the bipartisan consensus on the issue when, in fact, the problem the GOP is addressing is one created by the policies of Obama and the defection of the Democrats' left-wing from the ranks of the pro-Israel community.
Last year, large numbers of both the House and Senate Democratic caucuses signed a letter supporting an end to the blockade of Hamas-run Gaza and signaling a more "even-handed" attitude to the conflict. The recent election of people like Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — members of Congress who have engaged in anti-Semitic invective, as well as support the BDS movement that is steeped in anti-Semitism — has drawn attention to the fact that a significant portion of the Democratic base is not so much indifferent to Israel as downright hostile to it. The fact that Omar and Tlaib have received prominent committee assignments, rather than being punished for anti-Semitic statements, points to which way the wind is blowing on the left.
Polls continue to reveal the way growing numbers of Democrats have abandoned Israel. The latest from the Pew Research Center shows the growing gap between the parties, with 79 percent of Republicans saying they back Israel against the Palestinians versus only 27 percent of Democrats who feel that way.
While Democrats blame U.S. President Donald Trump's historic support for Israel and devotion of white evangelicals to the Jewish state for alienating members of their party, the real problem is the influence of intersectional forces like those who head the Women's March, which is saturated with anti-Semitism, on the left wing of their party.
That's why the new pro-Israel group is desperately needed. Still, there is plenty of reason to worry that opponents of Israel may be more popular among younger Democrats than veteran Democratic strategists like Mark Mellman and Ann Lewis, who has signed up to lead the DMI.
Just as interesting is the fact that J Street has made it clear that it opposes this new group because they view it as an ally of AIPAC and the mainstream pro-Israel community.
The willingness of so many Democrats to buy into false arguments about a bill to ban compliance with discriminatory BDS boycotts of Israel shows that DMI will have its work cut out for it. Yet as long as it can count on the backing of major pro-Israel donors, as well as leading members of the Democratic leadership like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), they can have an impact.
For years, Jewish Democrats were too busy blaming pro-Israel Republicans for their problems to face up to the challenge from anti-Zionists on the left. While their opponents are growing in strength and significance, the creation of the DMI shows that pro-Israel Democrats have started to fight for the soul of their party. Whether or not you support the Democrats, everyone who cares about the U.S.-Israel alliance should be praying for their success.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Media Falls for Another Trump Hoax
An escort who claimed that she had evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia is now saying that she made the story up to draw media attention to her own perilous situation.
According to Fox News:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Media Falls for Another Trump Hoax
An escort who claimed that she had evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia is now saying that she made the story up to draw media attention to her own perilous situation.
According to Fox News:
The model also said that the Russian government told her not to speak about the oligarch anymore and that she should stop making claims like this. It is unclear if this means the evidence exists, but for now she is claiming the claims were a ruse, and the media fell for it.Anastasia Vashukevich, who spent months in a Thai jail last year for organizing sex training seminars, grabbed headlines after saying she has evidence that Russia worked with Trump’s campaign.
She asked the U.S. government to secure her freedom from the Thai lockup and grant her political asylum in exchange for recordings in which she said Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska is heard talking about interfering in the U.S. presidential elections. She reportedly worked as an escort, with Deripaska being one of her clients.
But the model now claims her story was just an effort to attract media attention and save her life while she was detained in Thailand.
“I think it saved my life, how can I regret it? If journalists had not come at that time and that story had not come to the newspapers, maybe I would die [be dead by] now,” she told CNN.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) The Democrats Have A Serious Radicalism Problem, And Kamala Harris Just Proved It
On Monday evening, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) jumped into the presidential race with both feet in a townhall in Iowa, broadcast by CNN. There, Harris embraced every radical position available to her – presumably in an attempt to crowd out candidates to her Left, including Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). With that strategy in mind, she embraced Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s so-called Green New Deal, which would cost an estimated $49 trillion over the next ten years, as well as slashing the military in half, eliminating natural gas and coal within 11 years, and banning gasoline-powered vehicles. She also embraced nationalized health care insurance to the extent that she gladly stated that she would “eliminate” private insurance – you know, the insurance upon which the vast majority of Americans rely. A Medicare-for-All plan would cost some $32 trillion over ten years – and that’s a low-end estimate, considering that Bernie Sanders’ plan assumes a 40 percent reduction in provider payments, and no private health care spending outside the system. And Harris embraced a full-scale ban on semi-automatic weapons.
None of these proposals are either remotely tenable or even popular. The Green New Deal is dead on arrival; try polling Americans on whether they want the government to ban their cars. Medicare-for-All? Just 37 percent of Americans want it when informed their health plans would disappear – and just wait until they hear about the increased taxes. How about a ban on semi-automatic weapons? Only 40 percent of Americans were in favor as of October.
But Democrats, honing in on President Trump’s personal unpopularity, apparently mistake the public rejection of Trump’s personal foibles for public warmth toward full-scale Leftism. There’s simply no evidence of that. That’s why Democrats are panicking over the possibility of a third party candidate like Howard Schultz, former Starbucks CEO, who could siphon off many anti-Trump votes by not running as a complete loony. There’s room for an anti-Trump centrist in this electorate – and that running space has been created by a Democratic Party beholden to its radical base.
That’s why it will be fascinating to see how Vice President Joe Biden fares in Democratic primaries. Should he lose to someone more in line with the base – a Warren or a Sanders or a Harris – Democrats may face the possibility that Trump’s popularity ratings matter less to the general public than Democrats’ extremism. Democrats see Trump’s 2020 re-election race as a golden opportunity to move further to the Left. But they may find out the hard way that when forced to choose between a vulgarian who doesn’t want to take away their health insurance and a media darling who does, the American people aren’t sure to choose the latter.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) China’s Huawei Reckoning
The criminal charges should play out in court, not in trade talks.
By The Editorial Board
The twin U.S. indictments of Huawei on Monday provide enough detail to make a compelling case for criminal acts. Huawei says it’s innocent, and the telecom giant deserves its day in court, but the message is that China and its companies can no longer violate global norms with impunity.
Justice claims in one indictment that Huawei employees in the U.S. stole T-Mobile technology at the direction of superiors in China. In 2006 T-Mobile designed a robotic phone-testing system known as “tappy.” T-Mobile then provided Huawei access to a high-security lab where the robot tested phones.
The indictment says Huawei employees abused their security clearances by taking pictures and admitting an unauthorized Chinese engineer. One Huawei employee removed a robotic arm in his laptop case but claimed he had merely made a “mistake” when caught. Huawei conducted an internal investigation and fired two employees it said had “acted on their own.” But the charges say Huawei paid bonuses to workers for stealing trade secrets.
The other indictment says Huawei and CFO Meng Wanzhou used a shell scheme to conceal its business in Iran that violated U.S. sanctions for a decade. Justice says Huawei operated the Hong Kong telecom company Skycom as an unofficial subsidiary and misrepresented this relationship to the government and banks. This let Huawei clear transactions from its Iranian business in U.S. dollars and euros.
In 2007 Huawei’s founder—Ms. Meng’s father Ren Zhengfei—told the FBI Huawei did not violate U.S. sanctions. Huawei also denied a 2012 Reuters report that it used Skycom to dodge sanctions. After one bank terminated its Huawei relationship in 2017 because of “risk concerns,” Huawei turned to another unspecified bank that it also allegedly deceived.
The indictments show a company that thought it didn’t have to comply with global rules, and this has too often been the China way. Earlier this month the Polish government arrested a Huawei employee for spying. Huawei disavowed and fired the employee, but no one believes these incidents are the work of rogue employees.
It won’t be enough for Huawei or China's foreign ministry to suggest the charges are political or tied to U.S.-China trade talks. While the world tolerated rogue behavior while China was developing, that indulgence is over now that Beijing wants to become a dominant power.
Huawei is getting particular attention now because of fears that the rollout of 5G telecom technology will increase opportunities for cyber-spying and theft. The worry is global. Australia and New Zealand have blocked Huawei from their 5G networks, and Vodafone last week suspended purchases of Huawei equipment in its core.It won’t be enough for Huawei or China's foreign ministry to suggest the charges are political or tied to U.S.-China trade talks. While the world tolerated rogue behavior while China was developing, that indulgence is over now that Beijing wants to become a dominant power.
The indictments also recall the sanctions runaround by ZTE, another Chinese telecom firm. In 2016 the U.S. Commerce Department alleged ZTE had set up shell companies to evade U.S. sanctions. According to internal ZTE documents, executives compared their ruse to a rival firm believed to be Huawei. After receiving a reprieve from the Obama Administration, ZTE continued to cheat and lie about it. Last spring Commerce banned U.S. companies from selling technology to ZTE for seven years. It was saved when President Trump personally intervened to lubricate trade talks.
One danger now is that China will respond to the Huawei charges by indicting a U.S. company or finding some U.S. executive to arrest. China detained two Canadians on national security allegations last year after Canada detained Ms. Meng at U.S. request.
Another risk is that President Trump will shelve the Huawei indictment as part of a larger trade deal as he did with ZTE, or in return for China dropping charges against an American. This would be a mistake. Now that charges have been filed, the U.S. legal process needs to play out or else the charges will look political.
Trade negotiations can take place separately, and that should be the message to China, which has ample incentives to strike a deal. The U.S. and China need to find a new common trade and security understanding, but it starts with China abiding by the rules of the global system that has allowed its companies to prosper.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6) A Sino-Russian Entente Again Threatens America
The U.S. must revise its policy toward Moscow if it is to meet the threat from a rising China.
Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warned in 1997 that the greatest long-term threat to U.S. interests would be a “grand coalition” of China and Russia, “united not by ideology but by complementary grievances.” This coalition “would be reminiscent in scale and scope of the challenge once posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time China would likely be the leader and Russia the follower.”
Few heeded his admonition. But this grand alignment of the aggrieved has been moving from the realm of the hypothetical toward what could soon be a geostrategic fact. Beijing and Moscow are drawing closer together to meet what each sees as the “American threat.”
The thought of an entente between Eurasia’s two great powers has for the most part struck the Washington establishment as so outlandish as not to require serious examination. Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in August that Moscow and Beijing have a “natural non-convergence of interests.” And there can be no doubt that their values and cultures differ starkly.
Nonetheless, a fundamental proposition in international relations is that the enemy of my enemy is a friend. Students of history know how often governments have been surprised by unnatural bedfellows, including the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and the U.S.-Soviet alliance in World War II.
The U.S. and Russia have grown more antagonistic in theaters from the Middle East to Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, the Washington foreign-policy establishment is increasingly in agreement that China is the primary strategic adversary of the U.S. as the two countries clash over trade and the South China Sea. It would be surprising if strategists in Beijing and Moscow did not recognize a common enemy.
President Obama was visibly disdainful toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, and President Trump charges that China is “raping America.” By contrast, Xi Jinping took his first foreign trip as China’s president to Moscow and has recently declared the Russian leader his “best, most intimate friend.” Both Messrs. Xi and Putin see the U.S. as trying to undermine authoritarian regimes and therefore their own legitimacy as rulers.
In Chinese and Russian national-security documents, their relationship is called a “comprehensive strategic partnership.” Mr. Xi said in 2013 that “the Sino-Russian relationship is the world’s most important bilateral relationship, and is the best relationship between large countries.” China and Russia coordinate their positions in the United Nations Security Council (where they vote together 98% of the time), the Brics summits, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Russia is also pivoting east economically. China is Russia’s top trading partner and the top buyer of Russian oil. With the completion of the Power of Siberia pipeline this year, China will become the second-largest market for Russian gas, just behind Germany.
American experts have discounted Sino-Russian military cooperation. But one Russian official described the relationship as a “functional military alliance.” Russia has started selling China some of its most advanced technologies, including the S-400 air defenses. The two countries share intelligence and threat assessments and actively collaborate on rocket-engine research and development.In Chinese and Russian national-security documents, their relationship is called a “comprehensive strategic partnership.” Mr. Xi said in 2013 that “the Sino-Russian relationship is the world’s most important bilateral relationship, and is the best relationship between large countries.” China and Russia coordinate their positions in the United Nations Security Council (where they vote together 98% of the time), the Brics summits, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Russia is also pivoting east economically. China is Russia’s top trading partner and the top buyer of Russian oil. With the completion of the Power of Siberia pipeline this year, China will become the second-largest market for Russian gas, just behind Germany.
True, Russian elites continue to look west when it comes to tradition, culture and history. Wealthy Russians buy second (and third) homes in London and New York, not Beijing. But as their hopes for integration with the West have eroded, the number of Russians learning Mandarin and traveling east has increased.
A half-century ago, recognizing the threat from the Sino-Russian behemoth, Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon managed to forge a relationship with Mao’s China that widened an emerging fissure between the two powers. Over time, this helped the U.S. undermine the Soviet empire and achieve victory in the Cold War. Today China is taking a page from that script, pulling Russia into its orbit for a long confrontation with the U.S.
If the defining challenge to U.S. national interests in the 21st century is a rising China, preventing the emergence of a Sino-Russian entente should be a key U.S. priority. Persuading Russia to sit on the U.S. side of the balance of power seesaw will require American policy makers to revise substantially their strategic objectives in dealing with Moscow. As difficult as this is to imagine in the craze of American politics today, the starting point for the conversation must be clear-eyed recognition of cause and effect. When the U.S. seeks to punish Mr. Putin for his unacceptable behavior—no matter its intentions—it has the predictable consequence of pushing Russia into an unnatural alliance with China.
A sound U.S. global strategy would combine greater realism in recognizing the threat of a Beijing-Moscow alliance, and greater imagination in creating a coalition of nations to meet it.
Mr. Allison, a professor of government at Harvard, is author of “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?” ( Houghton Mifflin Harcourt , 2017). Mr. Simes is president and CEO of the Center for the National Interest.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6) THE EINSTEINS OF HOLLYWOOD
6) THE EINSTEINS OF HOLLYWOOD
Ever look up the education credentials of Hollywood and New York Liberals? Most of them rely on knowledge clouds drifting across the Pacific, perhaps from an Asian mystic who wears lots of colorful beads. The mystic has brought them deep understanding of economics, governance, military affairs and especially science. It inspires bold words on most topics.
LEONARDO DeCAPRIO's self-declared climate expertise enables him to speak on the world's environmental issues with a GED high-school education. He never took a college biology, chemistry, physics or climatology course, yet he “knows" more than most scientists. He proved that by addressing climate change before a full gathering of the UN.
SEAN PENN's quick takes on everything put him at the lofty level of an Einstein. He visited Iraq once and became an expert on that country. The same for Iran He also became buddies with the brutal Venezuelan communist Hugo Chavez and consistently lauded that murderous thug.. Now that Chavez is gone and Venezuelans are raiding dumpsters for food scraps, Penn is having a rare silent moment. Penn deserves some credit for becoming a world-affairs genius based on two years of auto mechanics classes at Santa Monica College
KATY PERRY's passion about politics and economics freed her to quit high school at 15 without compromising her expert status. Asked the square root of 64, the name given the Constitution's first 10 amendments and to explain PE ratio, her answer might be, "Republicans are for the rich." She recently demonstrated wizardry by making an anti-Trump video. It suggested the new president would commit acts similar to forced World War II lockups of loyal Japanese-Americans. Perry probably did not know the internment plan was developed and executed by DEMOCRAT President Roosevelt.
ROBERT DeNIRO must also be a quick learner. He acquired amazing scientific knowledge before dropping out of high school. He knows so much about geology that he joined Artists Against Fracking. (All the producing wells in his native Manhattan must have provided first-hand experience.) He's also an expert on pediatric medicine, enabling him to speak often against vaccinating infants and children.
HARRY BELAFONTE is another multiple-subject whiz who needed little formal education. Some people might think this talented singer might limit his words to songs since his IQ is so low. Don't worry. Despite advancing age, he remains expert on most things. When black people of greater intelligence (that's most black people) say something moderate or conservative, he hurls the N word at them. Decades ago, he loudly denounced Reagan's elimination of CETA, the Comprehensive Employment Training Act. It was one of the most wasteful federal programs ever -- many vanished dollars, few jobs. Belafonte tore into Reagan during an interview Finally, the interviewer asked Belafonte what CETA stood for. Belafonte had no clue. He knew almost nothing about the act.
ROSIE O'DONNELL was my personal favorite long before her hateful remark that Trump's 10-year-old son looked autistic. Her coarse philosophy must be that if you say something loudly, it need not be correct. Her bombast probably created lots of turmoil with both the women she "married." She also must have skipped chemistry during high-school education and her short stints at Dickinson and Boston Universities .. Otherwise, she would have not have offered "proof" that 9/11 was an inside job. She often bellowed that planes could not have brought down the Twin Towers because "steel doesn't burn." This constant jackass must not know that high temperatures DO reduce steel's strength.
AL SHARPTON would be America 's greatest at-large criminal, if not for Hillary's tens of millions swapped for influence and favors. Sharpton owes nearly $5 million in delinquent taxes to IRS and New York state. Makes you wonder why NBC/MSNBC would ever hire him. Sharpton accumulated vast theological knowledge by age 9, when he was "ordained" as a preacher. He didn't need more than 2 years at New York’s Brooklyn College to keep marching forward. His most successful class must have been Using Others’ Money. Despite one scandal after another, his 2004 run for president stands out. The Federal Election Commission forced him to return $100,000 in taxpayer money provided by FEC. One of many abuses was his $145,146 charge for "Campaign letter preparation -- Kinko's." Later, FEC fined Sharpton $285,000.
JULIA ROBERTS proves that physical beauty does not ensure a beautiful brain. She had a fling at Georgia State University before pursuing acting lessons and joining a modeling group. Her acting and modeling skills guided her to such thoughtful observations as "Republican" comes between "reptile" and "repugnant" in the dictionary. Impressed?
BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN could have been No. 1 on this list. He squabbled with nuns when in Catholic school. Transferring to a public school, he thought so little of the education experience that he skipped graduation. Had he gone to college, he might have majored in Hate 101. That's what we hear when he's not singing. He claims Trump is a "moron" who advocates "white nationalism." Springsteen demonstrates the analytical skills' void of most show-biz folk when he laments America 's industrialization decline Somebody please whisper to Springsteen that his party's business-crunching regulations and world-leading corporate tax rate compels U.S. manufacturers to go elsewhere.
Finally, two others are outside the entertainment world, disqualifying them from winning an Oscar, Emmy or Grammy.
NANCY PELOSI and MAXINE WATERS compete for the Rock Head of the Year trophy each time they speak. Pelosi frequently wins with comments like needing to pass a bill "so we can find out what's in it."
Waters has already locked up the 2017 trophy for suggesting a Trump impeachment over his campaign antics. Listen closely, Maxine. Presidents can be impeached only for what they do in office.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
