Choose Your Adventure!

Scenario 1:

After 8 years of an obnoxious president, voters realized Hillary Clinton would be just as bad, and perhaps worse, than her predecessor; thus motivated, they turned out in respectable numbers to vote for an alternative, even though he was a freak show of a human. At least they would know, going in, what they’d be getting with Donald Trump. So he won more states than Hillary Clinton, who arrogantly didn’t bother to even campaign in most states, giving him an electoral win. Meanwhile, California voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton by almost three million more votes than she got anywhere else.

Scenario 2:

Working in collusion with Donald Trump, on whom they have grave and serious information somehow unavailable to the media, Russian intelligence agents seeking to boost Putin’s popularity in the United States, convince FBI director James Comey to announce—maybe even the night before the election—that Hillary Clinton would not be charged with criminal negligence based on her own staff’s inability to secure an email server, which the Russians hacked as practice for using their computers to control the votes in the election to such an extent that Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote but manages to lose every state she refused to visit during the election. And that’s why Trump’s win is a trick and he needs to step down, letting her win the presidency instead of ceding the job to the vice president-elect.

Choose your ending to 2016. For what it’s worth, Vice President Joe Biden publicly stated he believes option 1.

Obama and the Democrats Gave Us President Trump

“Thanks, Barry, for so thoroughly alienating white voters that I can tear down your entire presidency in a year or less. It’ll be just like you never existed as president. Ironic, huh?”

Smarter people than ‘Puter have written about Democrats’ strategy of unity through division. Way smarter people. People like that one kid in third grade who ate paste and his own boogers, probably. But ‘Puter feels he has something to add.

Democrats divide us. Division is integral to their election strategy. Since the 1960s, Democrats have pushed hard to divide America into mutual grievance societies based on race, sexuality, and gender. Democrats then unite these disparate groups, many with incompatible beliefs and goals, in hatred of the root cause of each group’s problems: white people.

For the most part, it’s been a remarkably successful strategy. Who doesn’t want to believe (despite all evidence to the contrary) that an amorphous third party cabal is the sole cause of everything that’s wrong in your life?

You’re an illiterate mother of seven children by five different men living on welfare? It’s not your fault, or your elected representatives’ faults for giving you crappy schools. Whitey T. Mann is to blame.

Insurance won’t pay for your wang lop-off-ology to cure your gender dysphoria because science and medicine have the audacity to classify it as a mental disorder? That damned Whitey T. Mann!

You graduated college $75,000 in debt with a worthless degree in Gender Studies, and no one will hire you because you’re a loudmouthed jerk incapable of any thought deeper than parroting your equally worthless professor’s totally made up garbage hot takes on the world? Clearly, Whitey T. Mann’s fingerprints are all over this.

Well, guess what, Democrats? After 50 years or so of uniting every grievance group in the country in hatred of white men, white men took a page from your book. They united against you.

Tired of being told they were to blame for everyone else’s problems, white folks looked around at their crappy jobs and stagnant (or falling) economic circumstances and shot Democrats the middle finger.

‘Puter can almost hear whites thinking, “F*ck me? Yeah? Well, I’m sick of this sh*t. F*CK YOU!” And f*ck you they did, Democrats. Whites elected Donald J. Trump president of the United States, thanks in no small part to your decades of blaming them for everything under the sun, from racism to climate change to New Coke.

So as Democrats look around the ruins of their once mighty political empire, they will be comforted to know they created the conditions that lead to Republican dominance of state legislatures, governorships, the Congress, and yes, the election of Donald J. Trump.

Well done, asshats.

Rage One: A Czar Wars Story

Joyfully acted scene in which Sith Lord Kal Jek O’Malley (Nick Rivers) conspires against our heroes with Lux Lumens (Chris Knight).

The Czar was evidently among the last to see Rogue One: A Star Wars Story on the big screen last night, based on the very light audience present. But he gathered up the boys, found great seats about middle-center (where the sound mix) is superb, fired up the smokers, and set up the keg on the seat next to him.

Sorry if the Czar spoils any of the movie for you in this review, but if he has seen it, then you can rest assured you’ve had it spoiled weeks ago by the jerks in your life who insist, because you’re going to see it anyway, here’s every secret twist and ending. You know who that is in your life. The Czar, for example, has the Mandarin.

This is a very different Star Wars movie, because for the most part, all the major returning actors from the previous movies are thoroughly dead. Instead, you get all new characters. A popular favorite will surely be the new robot, 4B494C4D4552 (or whatever his name is), who is beautifully delicate at the request of the toy makers who will see parents buying the same action figure multiple times due his inherent fragility. The Czar has the same problem with his breakable-as-heck Tobey McGuire action figure from the Ciderhouse Rules playset he keeps crushing by sleeping on it.

A lot of buzz has been generated by the apparent politics of this movie, which a lot of liberals are cheering because clearly it’s an allegory for protesting Donald Trump, which is the same argument they’ve been making about The Sandlot, Dude, Where’s My Car, and March of the Penguins. The producers and director of the movie insist there is no political allegory, although frankly its plot about stealing data from a bad guy named KlinTon in order to destroy an unstoppable political force intent on annihilating free trade pretty much swings the other way, if you know what we mean.

The scene where Dakota Fanning open-mouth kisses Helen Mirren (brought back to life by amazing CGI) will surely be an Oscar winner, just as soon as the Academy decides to whom to give it. An unexpected musical number (the “Force Push” song is surprisingly catchy) is another break with Star Wars tradition, and not at all a bad call by director Gareth “Welshy” Edwards.

The movie isn’t perfect: it slows down quite a bit between the opening and end credits, and the Disney marketing presence is obvious throughout, with obvious amusement park rides waiting to be constructed from scenes in the movie, frequent and annoyingly incoherent interruptions by Johnny Depp in street clothes, and the fight scene between Iron Man and Olaf. And that lengthy bit with Owen Wilson insisting Cars 3 will not terrify kids way too young to remember the original movies…not sure why that was jarringly cut into the middle of an otherwise exciting space battle.

Should you see it? Definitely, if the alternative is merely hearing the sound track. You could wait for it to go to video, or if you’re like ’Puter, you’ll wait until it’s acted out by the local high school fine arts club as a Friday night performance.

Meantime, we do have plenty of ribs left over from last night’s barbecue in the main aisle. So now that our heartburn has quieted down, we shall resume chewing those bones.

And It Gets Dumber

GorT’s entirely correct that Democrats are engaging in their typical naked hypocrisy regarding the Republicans’ attempted changes to the Office of Congressional Ethics. Perhaps it’s just jealousy that the Democrats never managed to do it.

There are two points to consider:

First, the plan was actually to consolidate the Office of Congressional Ethics into another ethics organization, not to eliminate all ethics committees. There are numerous ethics committees better suited, and non-partisan, to monitor, address, and pursue breaches of ethics in Congress.

Second, the reason the Office of Congressional Ethics was selected for remediation was because it was functionally useless. Do you know the last time the OCE addressed an ethics violation? You can spend all day looking and not find anything. It was a waste of time and money, and accomplished nothing. It was Yet Another Committee to make politicians look busy. Its net value was zero.

The Czar agrees it was a weird, and maybe disturbing, choice of priorities for the new House, but yes, the media is intentionally portraying this as a move by Republicans to shut down the United States House Committee on Ethics, which is a larger and more substantive group.

Fortunately, if you live well outside of the District of Columbia, this will be a two-day news story never heard again. It’s noise. Pay it no mind.

And So It Begins

GorT’s liberal relatives fired up this morning regarding the GOP’s late night move to attempt to dismantle the Office of Congressional Ethics.  The problem is that any move against an office purported to be in existence to provide independent oversight for ethics is fraught with peril – soundbites are easy and the stories almost write themselves: “Crony politicans out to gut office providing ethics oversight”.  Yeah, that’ll go well.

Let’s be clear: GorT is no fan of politicians and thinks many are pretty slimy and an ethics oversight body is likely warranted. In addition, GorT finds himself struggling to identify with the GOP per se as they have been blundering about for so long and not focused on the main issues that matter in my eye(s).

Having said that, here’s a piece of advice to those who would care to engage a liberal on this matter. Did you know that the democrats tried twice within the last seven years to do similar damage to that same office?

First, in 2010, Representative Marica Fudge (D-OH) and the Congressional Black Caucus authored and supported a measure to, in the words of the Politico report, “gut [the] ethics office”.

Second, in 2011, Representative Melvin Watt (D-NC) tried to cut the budget of the OCE by 40%. This only a year after that same office had him under investigation for campaign fundraising events.  According to the NY Times blog, Republican leaders were pressured, upon taking on the leadership role in the house in 2011, to reign in or kill the office but resisted.

In neither case did Pelosi, Reid, Obama, or other democrats decry the move.  So now you have pieces like this in the Huffington Post with Rep Pelosi saying that the Republicans had “clear contempt for ethics in the People’s House”.  Where was this back in 2010 and 2011 when she was the Speaker of the House and her OWN party was trying it?

We’re in for years of this kind of thing…just wait.

There Is No Obama Legacy

Happy New Year, to all our followers, minions, and operatives. There will be no pay raises for any of you this year.

The Czar spent the afternoon reviewing Euler’s equations for a rotating solid, and still finds it hilarious that rotation around the second principle axis results in instability. What a perfect way to describe 2016.

However, he took a break to pen a short post when he spotted a comment from the Obama administration that, with 20 or less days until Obama is finally out of his first real job, he fully intends to stay involved in politics and driving his political ideas forward.

Naturally, a smart thinker like yourself would ask “Why?”. The answer is basic psychology: he has nothing substantive to show for the last 8 years, and that’s pretty bad for a thin-skinned narcissist bent on immortality. Basically, he hasn’t lived up to his own standards of impressing the shit out of everybody with how smart he must be.

Think it over, if you haven’t already: he came in promising to heal the earth and slow the rise of the seas. He’d failed. He intended to pacify the world by taking America down a notch; of course, the world is in far worse shape over 8 years of leading from behind. He intended to revamp healthcare to bring coverage to all Americans and, by his inept head-nodding toward fast-talking people, passed Obamacare, which may be more hated than Prohibition. His gun control scheme worked out really well for the Second Amendment, which is now more solid than it’s been since the 1930s. His reduction in forces in Afghanistan and Iran has seen troops added to Syria as well. His reset with Russia? About as valid as his non-nuclear Iran treaty. We could go on and on, but you already have the idea. Virtually everything he promised has blown up in his face.

He’s been tweeting out his accomplishments a lot, lately: you know, gay marriage (which was never a federal issue to begin with), financial regulation reform (expected to be undone shortly), and lower unemployment—which is technically true only because it took 8 years of redefining labor participation to make it appear real.

In 2040, a tiny group of students assigned a group report will laugh hysterically at the Mmmm-mmm-mmm Barack Hussein Obama chant. “Check this dweeb out! Who the hell did this guy think he was?”

In short, the guy who exhibited an aura of light and hope and change in 2008, who saw himself as the LeBron James of presidents, has wound up looking every bit a Colin Kapernick—useless and undeserving of further attention. And like Kapernick, a lot of his former fans wish he’d just go away quietly to some self-loathing beach in Hawaii before he does any more damage, like leaving the grill on all night and burning the garage down.

Obama has always been obsessed with his legacy (remember when he had difficulty deciding how to rank himself among Lincoln and Reagan?), and unlike the Nobel Committee he still believes the prize award was a good idea. His obsession with his legacy is because he wants, oh so badly, to be a big chapter in every history book going to be written.

As such, as he steps off the Marine One whitecap on the 20th for the very last time, he’ll merit, at best, a page in a high school textbook. In the next edition, he might just be a paragraph, like Grover Cleveland or Andrew Jackson: a bit of trivia about the circumstances of his election, a discussion about his overreach, his improbable re-election, and a transition clause about the 2016 elections, all in between longer sentences about ISIS, Syria, and economic malaise.

There’s his legacy. And if he continues in politics like he hopes, maybe one day he’ll accomplish something that people won’t snicker or dismiss. He’s hoping for more time, which can also be described as grasping at straws. Hail to the Chief.

How to Be a UN Ambassador

The following essay is a guest post from Derek the Last. We remind our readers that you are welcome to submit your thoughts either as an email or as a complete essay.

There has been a lot of talk about defunding the United Nations lately and I used to support that position. It never made a whole lot of sense to belong to an organization that was hell bent on weakening our nation after saving the world over and over again. However after much thought I realized that instead of defunding and pulling out of the UN we should stay in and just change the way we deal with it. In fact, I have made it one of my life goals to become the US Ambassador to the United Nations. I know this is not a very high bar I have set for myself but I think I could have fun with it.

A typical UN session captured by photographer Matt Vaudrey.

I would be an excellent Ambassador. I understand fully what the function and purpose of the United Nations is and will do everything I can as the representative of the greatest nation on the planet to make sure the UN stays on mission. What is that mission? Well, it is basically a forum where nations of the world can ineffectively shake their fists at us and call us names without really doing harm to our goals and agendas. They get to complain and feel good that they got all snotty with us and we didn’t strike them down with our Olympian-like powers. However, previous and present Presidents and Ambassadors have allowed the UN to actually accomplish things that harm our country. I will set things right.

How can I accomplish that? Well, here is my four point plan:

1. The Kinison Doctrine

Whenever a country starts chastising us and telling us how to run our stuff I will simply invoke the ultimate trump card of our awesomeness that I stole from the late comedian Sam Kinison.

“So you think the United States should not do X and that country Y is has some sort of moral equivalency to us? I tell you what, you think your country is the bees knees, well [cue PowerPoint image of the moon] there is the moon, go up there and bring our flag back! Oh, and since we already did the hard work of figuring out how to get there and back in the Dark Ages of the 1960s and I am sure your backward country has stolen that info, we are going to up the difficulty level a bit. Once you launch your rocket to the moon we are going to shoot missiles at it. If for some reason we miss and you survive the trip to the moon and back, we will shoot missiles at the return vehicle. If you survive that and have your astronaut march in here with our flag, the US will proclaim you awesome and listen to what you have to say. If you can’t do that then sit down and shut up!”

2. Opposite Day Every Day

Did you know* that every permanent member of the UN Security Council (US, Britian, Russia, France and China) has veto power? Yes, that means that if one of those countries vote NO on an issue, no matter how many vote yes, then it does not pass. So my plan is that anything that Russia, France or China votes YES on then I will automatically vote NO. Typically smart things that the US votes for, one of those three will vote NO just to be jerks. I really don’t care if it is a good idea or not, the UN is not about good ideas, I am going to vote opposite of anyone one of those three countries.

“So we are voting to ban the use of landmines because goats keep blowing themselves up. Okay, what did France vote on that? Yes? Okay, then my vote is NO. Everyone keeps their landmines.”

None of this abstaining crap either. Real countries vote either YES or NO.

3. Move the UN out of New York

We were pretty generous when we set up the UN with some prime New York real estate and basically pay for them to live there. They have perfectly good facilities in Geneva and since they can’t stand America or Americans, then close up shop in NY and go back. My wife loves Swiss chocolate anyway and I would love getting a nice precision time piece. So my plan is to ask for President Trump for a couple hundred U-Haul trucks and park them outside of the UN. Let them know that we have stopped paying the light bill and they have until the end of the day to get all their crap out of the building because by tomorrow morning the entire place will be an Indian Casino and I plan on watching a Jeff Dunham show there by the following evening. Achmed cracks me up.

4. Foreign Aid to be determined by Wipeout.

Remember that show where contestants run a wacky obstacle course and bounce off those huge inflatable balls and fall into cold water for a shot at $50,000 bucks? Well imagine what some country’s ambassador would do for a shot at one billion dollars! If you want money from us you have to jump through some hoops and entertain us in the process. The winner gets the aid package as well as having to sign a document stating how awesome America is and how crappy their country is to have to come a beg us for money. The document will be written in English and whatever language they speak so there will be none of that “Well, I said America is Awesome in English, but America is Sucky in my native tongue” nonsense. We have caught onto that trick and will stop pretending we do not know about it. So if you want to beg money from us, no more acting like you deserve the money as some sort of payback for “imperialism” or some such nonsense.

So that’s my plan. I am sure there is some tightening up to do with it but it seems more solid than what we have been doing with the UN for the past 71 years. Maybe after 4 years of doing this folks will stop pretending the UN has a purpose.

Loyalty until Death,

Derek the Last
*For those who came in late, Confucius is the Gormogons’ Œcumenical Volgi. This isn’t remotely related to Derek’s post, but we really haven’t mentioned it in a while, and frankly it seems like a better opportunity isn’t going to happen for a while.

One State, One Israel

Donald Trump, for all his flaws, has succeeded in doing what no Republican president to date has done: illustrating the emperors of Foggy Bottom have no clothes.

Take the latest Obama-Kerry fit of pique/backstabbing of Israel. State Department doctrine is the only possible solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict is two states, one for Jews and one for Muslims. This is a great idea, in theory! We really ought to try it!

We did, in 1947, when the United Nations authorized* in Resolution 181 the creation of Israel and a separate Palestinian state. Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948 and for its trouble was promptly attacked by Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and forces of Saudi Arabia. Israel beat back the Arab nations’ cowardly attack in 1948, defending its territory, its state, and its freedom.

For no reason other than existing, Israel has since been required by Arab (Muslim) nations’ aggression to fight additional wars in 1967 (the Six Day War, so called because Israel handed its Arab neighbors their collective asses in six days) and 1973 (the Yom Kippur War, so called because Arab nations sneak attacked Israel on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar (which the State Department link does not note, further cementing ‘Puter’s opinion of Foggy Bottom as a den of anti-Semites)), not to mention the ongoing low-grade Muslim terrorism and intifadas.

To date, only Egypt and Jordan among the regional combatants recognizes Israel’s right to exist and is at peace (tenuous though it may be at times) with Israel. The remaining regional Muslim nations (and pretty much every other Muslim nation on earth) remain in a state of low grade war, or aggression if you prefer, with Israel.

The Gaza Strip Palestinians have elected Hamas, a recognized terrorist entity whose charter calls for the extermination of Israel. The West Bank Palestinians have chosen Fatah, the political arm of the PLO (another terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction) as their representation.

Trump’s recent affirmation of America’s strong ties to Israel – cultural, political, and military – is welcome news after eight years of increasing American enmity towards a great ally.** And Trump’s seeming questioning of the two state solution is welcome as well.

Based on history, and free from liberal wishcasting and masturbatory fantasies, Muslim nations and Palestinians have amply shown their hostility to a two state solution. The only solution Muslims will accept is a one state solution. One state without any Jews, that is.

So why does the United States continue to hold onto a fantasy solution, one that has not worked, one that Muslims show no interest in, and one that has led to war after war?

‘Puter chalks such hardhead stupidity up to a toxic combination of personal vanity (see, e.g., Obama’s “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow” moment) and hardwired leftist antisemitism, all to rampant in State Department corridors.

So why shouldn’t Trump, a man who’s ascension to the presidency tore down bedrock political assumptions, challenge a policy that’s failed repeatedly over decades due solely to Muslim nations’ aggression and bigotry? After all, as liberals are fond of saying, Obama’s not entitled to his own facts.

It’s well past time for America to abandon a failed policy. Perhaps a new American push for a one state solution, meaning on Israeli state, will force Muslim nations and the Palestinians to abandon their self-destructive lunacy in favor of peace. Perhaps so doing will goad the Muslims to war.

Either way, we will have a resolution, and that’s effective diplomacy, reaching permanent resolutions, whether through jaw-jaw or war-war.

* Why an effete collection of international thugs and criminals should have power to do anything except rot in jail or return to their filthy, backwards, corrupt, hellhole “nations” is beyond ‘Puter.

** ‘Puter would hazard the Obama-Clinton-Kerry bullying of Israel is nothing more than a continuation of old, well-documented Ivy League and State Department prejudice against Jews, but he has no evidence supporting this statement.

‘Puter’s 2017 Prognostications

Screw Nostradamus and Miss Cleo. Plus, they’re dead anyway. You’ve got ‘Puter, Master Prognosticator to the Stars!*

As a service to you, dear readers, ‘Puter spent the last week reading the signs and communing with the spirits of time to bring you a cheat sheet for 2017! You’re welcome, in advance.

  • Barack Obama will be crowned America’s most unbearable ex-president, surpassing the gold standard of James Earl Carter, the indubitable ex-president equivalent of syphilitic genitals.
  • Israel and Sunni Muslim nations will move closer to normalizing relations, spurred to act by Obama’s abandonment of the Middle East.
  • ‘Puter will continue to jump serious Twitter threads and turn the topic to bewbs. Some tweeps will continue to enjoy ‘Puter’s delightful whimsy, others will still hate ‘Puter’s guts.
  • Czar will win Beard Aficionado’s prestigious Most Pestilential Beard award for a record 544th year in a row.
  • Putin and Iran will continue their conquest of Syria and China its conquest of the South China Sea, both directly caused by eight years of a feckless, destructive Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy.
  • Celebrities will die, causing great hue and cry on social media. Said deceased celebrities will be forgotten in a matter of days.
  • Trump will be a better president than many thought, reined in by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Obamacare will be repealed and replaced, executive orders will be overturned, the CFPB will be neutered, and civil servants pushing political agendas will be fired.
  • Illinois will legalize recreational marijuana. Czar, Mandy, and Mo will hit the road to follow the Grateful Dead, too baked to realize the Grateful Dead are long gone, and never be heard from again.
  • ‘Puter’s dog will die, and his Dad will slip deeper into dementia.
  • Volgi will put up the smash Broadway hit, “Putin on the Ritz,” a delightful musical romp full of Russian slaughter and polonium.
  • Democrats will lose 8 seats in the Senate as a result of direct election losses or Democrats switching parties (e.g., Manchin).
  • Kim Kardashian will put out a series of YouTube instructional videos for do-it-yourself anus piercing.
  • Media and liberals will continue to ignore the lessons of 2016, deciding that benighted yokels in flyover country simply didn’t get their “why are you stupid crackers voting against your interests” message. Not coincidentally, media will become less and less relevant to most Americans.
  • The entire state of Wisconsin will receive stents to open their clogged, cheese-filled arteries, breaking the world record previously held by our nation’s Waffle House patrons.

‘Puter’s pretty sure he got the spirits’ dictation down correctly despite the vats of purple drank he consumed this holiday season.

Anyway, you should rely on ‘Puter’s prognostications here as gospel truth. What could possibly go wrong?

Merry New Year to all our followers.

* N. B. ‘Puter claims the title “Prognosticator to the Stars” because he goes outside at night and yells his incoherent, silly views at the sky.  – Czar

Liberals Still Not Getting the Message

Well, you all know ScottO (@gscottoliver), right? Well, he wrote in recently.

O Dread Czar,

In your excellent recent piece “Academia Becomes Aware”, you stated one reason that leftist arguments lose to the right, and went on to hint at what I believe to be an even more compelling reason, but left it unstated. That reason is, that leftist beliefs argue against human nature. The left’s goal is to control people and make them behave a certain way, that is contrary to natural human behavior. When an argument is presented that says, “You want A, but people will want to do Z,” and they realize you’re right, what can they do?

That’s right. Call you a bad person for pointing out the truth.

Regards and trembling,

One thing we’ve learned over the years is that it’s pretty tough to “win” an argument with the Left, because conservatives tend to argue from logic and reason, and Leftists tend to argue from feelings and emotions. Even if you produce a salient, solid point, they simply dismiss it with “Yeah, but that’s just wrong.” In other words, “you’re right, of course, but I can’t accept it.”

Interestingly, in your example, you do not state an interesting flip side: Although the left’s goal is to control people, the right’s goal is not… because going along with human nature (as opposed to going contrary to it), there’s nothing to control!

The Left needs to control people because their ideas are contrary to human nature. People won’t cooperate with them unless forced to do so.

We enjoyed your set up there.

Another thing that’s got the Czar torqued up today is that the media keep reminding us how utterly dumb they are. Check this out:

Okay, today’s stupid media circle jerk is the news that the outgoing Republican governor of North Carolina has totally shat upon the incoming Democrat governor. What a terrible, terrible guy: apparently, he made all these last-second changes in the law to screw over the new guy.

Except, of course, this is exactly what didn’t happen. Republican governor Pat McCrory was unhappy with the state’s General Assembly, who forwarded some bills that would have given him too much power. So he signed a reform bill into law that restricts his own power.

However, in the mean time, he narrowly (and we mean narrowly, lost his re-election attempt to challenger Roy Cooper. McCrory conceded the race after a very close re-count, and then signed his bill into law.

Boy, the media hate that he did this to Cooper, and CNN even produced some infographics to show you what a dirthole McCrory is. Basically, they boil down to this:

  • Election boards will go from three republicans and two democrats to four of each, balancing out the board. Why is that bad? Because it means that Cooper, a Democrat, won’t be able to put three Democrats in over two Republicans, which is unfair…or as CNN put it, this merely “may seem balanced.” Yes, the Democrats won’t be able to stack the deck in their favor. Of course, Republicans can’t either, but CNN hates them. No, CNN, it does not “seem balanced.” It is balanced.
  • State Supreme Court justices are elected by the people in North Carolina. Henceforth, candidates on the ballot will have their party affiliation listed after their name so the voter will know whether the candidate is a Republican or Democrat. And CNN hates this, because we all know that if voters discover who the Democrats are, they won’t vote for them and now you have a Republican state Supreme Court.
  • University school boards could have up to 66 members appointed by the governor, beholden to him. This seemed wrong to McCrory, whose reform now eliminates the governor’s ability to control the University of North Carolina. CNN hates this, because now it means Cooper can’t appoint loyalists either. And that means that instead of a school board system loyal to Democrats (or Republicans), they become independent. The horror.
  • Reduced staff count from 1,500 personal staffers for the governor to only 425 is bad to CNN, because it means that a Democrat governor will be able to appoint less cronies to key positions. Shameful. It’s not the McCrory reduced state spending, it’s that he eliminated jobs that could give more power to the governor, who will now be a Democrat.

Let us summarize: McCrory made four decisions to remove his influence from state affairs. He did this, by the way, expecting to win re-election: McCrory only conceded the election a little while ago. However, because a Democrat won the gubernatorial race, CNN has transformed this into a McCrory-screws-over-Cooper story. And CNN’s rationale explains exactly why any governor should have done what he did: they fully expect Cooper to abuse this power and are upset that he no longer can.

The Czar is saddened that some CNN hack named Max Blau tried to pass this blatantly partisan temper tantrum as news; he is more saddened that an editor read it, and not only approved it for publication, but had the graphics department make up artwork for it. CNN, which has done a fair amount to improve its naked partisanship, took a step backward with this mess.

If CNN still wonders why it cannot convince Americans it is a credible news source, we can always submit this as evidence. Also, if you’re wondering why states are continuing to purge Democrats from elected positions, you can use this evidence there as well.

That’s convenient.