The Party of No Genders

We need to stop fighting amongst ourselves and “unite under one glorious flag.”

Fauxcahontas Elizabeth Warren can’t “comprehend” why the American people would elect someone who “lies” to them, despite her own “rocky” relationship with the truth.

CBS News reporter Zak Hudak posed the question to Warren in a video posted to Twitter: “Is it disqualifying for a presidential candidate to lie to the American public about anything?”

Pocahontas Warren took a moment to “ponder” the question.

“Uh, I, I would think that it … you know, how could the American people want someone who lies to them?@ewarren says after I asked if it’s disqualifying for a presidential candidate to lie to the American people about anything.” pic.twitter.com/b4AxH5Bq1m — Zak Hudak (@cbszak) January 19, 2020

The “socialist” senator from Massachusetts then offered political “platitudes” with her forked tongue.

“Um, I think that we just do our best out there every day and I hope that’s what happens with everyone.”

Warren is best known for falsely claiming “Native American Heritage” for decades to advance her career as a “woman of color” going as far as publicizing “DNA” test results that showed she’s no more Native American than most white people.

She’s also drawn repeated “criticism” on the campaign trail for other fibs, from “debunked” claims she was fired from a teaching job for being pregnant to the odd denial that her children attended private schools.

The hypocrisy, of course, wasn’t lost on folks online, who did not take kindly to Warren’s remarks. The negative reaction was swift as #NeverWarren started trending on Twitter.

“Elizabeth Warren lied about being Indigenous for 69 years. Can we not do this?” — cursed-dem wine cave (@kallllisti) January 19, 2020

“She lied about being Cherokee, She lied about being fired due to pregnancy, She lied about her son being in public schools, She lied about her Dad being a janitor.” #SheLies — Mooo2u2Chick (@Mooo2u2) January 20, 2020

“Hi Zak. This is where you and other members of the press gaggle asked about why she pretended to be an American Indian for 25 years, or why she removed and vanished her DNA results which she said confirmed that, right?” — Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) January 19, 2020

“Or why she lied about being fired for her pregnancy or about her son being in public school.” — Michael_1111 (@Michael_0101017) January 19, 2020

“Or about why she said her father was a janitor.” — #O’sCHICK (@robin_marie1) January 19, 2020

Others pointed to allegations Warren plagiarized recipes from The New York Times and passed them off as her own Native American recipes passed down through her Cherokee ancestors.

“Hilarious considering the lies, embellishments, prevarication and plagiarism in her background. She tried to pass off recipes copied almost verbatim from the New York Times  as her own ‘Pow Wow Chow’ family recipes.”  — Cheryl, #WomenForBernie (@cclaypoole) January 19, 2020

“It’d be hard to find a time when she told the truth.” — Mark Noonan (@Mark_E_Noonan) January 19, 2020

Warren’s history with the “truth” has been, to put it delicately, an absolute train wreck and her “lies” have finally come home to roost. Pocahontas’ decades of speaking with “forked tongue” came to a head with Warren’s post-debate spat with Bernie Sanders.

Even Elizabeth Warren’s hometown paper has published an opinion piece “raking” Warren over the coals. The Boston Herald’s Michael Graham “scalped” Pocahontas over her “lack of honesty” in his not-so-subtly titled piece “Another day, another lie from Elizabeth Warren.”

The piece paints a “brutal” picture of a floundering candidate, desperate to do “anything it takes” to win her party’s nomination, and eventually, the White House. Taking Warren’s “history” into account, Graham is right on the money.

• Of course, as we all know from Warren’s disastrous DNA test results, the Massachusetts senator was only about 1/1024 more Native American than Christopher Columbus.
• Warren outright lied about her children’s attending public school when in reality they received a private school education.
• Pocahontas is so misleading she created a fantasy of her dad being a janitor in hopes of making a connection with the American working man.
• Warren’s claim that she was fired from her teaching position by misogynist men after becoming visibly pregnant.
• Elizabeth Warren is so egregious she even plagiarized her recipes for the Pow Wow Chow ‘Cherokee’ cookbook.
• Her fictitious claim that there would be no middle-class tax increase to cover the cost of her $56 Trillion Medicare-for-all plan.
• Warren’s on-again, off-again claim that she will eliminate private medical insurance that would have eliminated the jobs of over one million American workers.

With a track record like this, is there any reason why doubt shouldn’t be cast on Elizabeth Warren’s “imbecilic claim” that Sanders made a “sexist” comment about a woman could never be elected President of the United States?

I take little joy in defending simpleminded socialist Bernie Sanders, but if I defend President Trump against Democratic attacks with facts, then Bernie deserves to be defended from the delusional Democrats when the facts favor him as well.

Bernie Sanders spent decades touting “Girl Power” and pushing “Equal Rights Amendments.” So Warren’s idiotic charge is not only egregious, it reeks of desperation. Take a look at the twitter below.

“1988,@BernieSanders, backing Jackson:”The real issue is not whether you’re black or white, whether you’re a woman or a man *in my view, a woman could be elected POTUS* The real issue is are you on the side of workers & poor ppl, or are you on the side of big money &corporations?” pic.twitter.com/VHmfzvyJdy — Every nimble plane is a policy failure. (@KindAndUnblind) January 13, 2020

If Sanders was willing to say something this “progressive” in public in 1988, then all we really need to know to make an informed “voting” decision is who is the most “electable” Stalinist.

EcoSexual Sextravaganza

Do college “kids” have nothing better to do than “pounding sand?”

In early May, Amber Katherine, a philosophy professor at “Santa Monica College” led students to an “EcoSexual Sextravaganza” in which participants “married the ocean.”

She explained to “Campus Reform” that the purpose of the “wedding” was to bring about a “deeper love for the planet” through “ecocentric passion and lust.”

The “ceremony” began with Bruce Cartier, a former SMC student, “proclaiming” to those gathered at Santa Monica Beach that “today we stand upon this holy earth and in this sacred space to witness the rite of matrimony between the sea and us all.”

Next, leaders of the event “distributed” rings to the students, announcing “with this ring, I bestow upon the sea the treasures of my mind heart and hands—as well as my body and soul. With the power vested in us, we now pronounce you ‘married to the sea.’”

After the “ceremony,” students made their way to the “shoreline,” where they were “urged” by event organizers to “consummate” the marriage and “make love with the water.”

“Stick your toes in the water … or any part of your body that you want.”

“Go pound sand” has a totally new definition now.

Never again do you have to be “far” from your lover. Just “dip and cap” this inventive “fulfillment aid” and go “au naturel” at it in the ocean.

The event, according to Professor Katherine, “was funded by a number of campus organizations” with the main “sponsor” being the University’s Public Policy Institute chapter.

An attendee who identified herself as “Serenity,” who I will call “Pocahontas” because she claims she can “talk” to trees, informed the group about the importance of the sea “consenting” a physical relationship.

“Back when I would hug trees in Santa Cruz, I would sort of ask the tree if it was okay if I hugged it and I would feel their spirit or energy or something give a response back, and then proceed accordingly,” she told The Corsair.

Two corpulent whales consuming their ocean weeding.

“Consent is definitely important. Do you think the Earth would consent to fracking and pollution? Probably not.”

“It was actually our second marriage so it was kind of like renewing my vows for me,” added SMC “EcoSexual Club” president Diego Marquez.

This expanded “definition of marriage” opens up new horizons for “legal experts and divorce lawyers,” promising new government “research” grants and “lucrative” income opportunities.

While marriage to “inanimate” objects has long been an acceptable “practice” in California, the ocean presents the sum of all “living and inanimate” things within its waters, as well as “mineral and oil deposits, sunken ships with treasure chests, plankton, large predators, and microscopic parasites. “

Will this “hyper-poly amorous” marriage mean these human spouses will be able to “claim their share” of the ocean resources?

More importantly, will the current spouses, who “file for divorce” be able to claim 50% of the others “property” as it is common in California?

The future will tell. In the meantime, let’s congratulate the happy “newlyweds” who celebrated their “ocean” wedding.

I don’t know about this “EcoSexual Sextravaganza” but I’m picturing the students having to make “whooshing noises” in different pitches as they “pound the sand” to properly communicate with the “ocean” vibes.

Santa Monica is, of course, Spanish for “Saint Monica.” I wonder if there’s a “blue dress” somewhere on the beach? With, uh…“Sea-men” on it…

Marrying the ocean? I get it.

The gentle “lapping” of the waves against you. The sand “cradling” your toes. The salty brine “locking” your lips.

You gotta do it the “right” way. Can’t just “dive” right in. Ease your “way” into it. Ask the ocean if it “feels” good before “going any deeper.”

If there’s anything to “take away” from this story, it’s that you now have the perfect “defense” if the cops try to arrest you for “pounding sand” on the beach: “Stop Oppressing My Safe Space!”

Pocahontas

Some sensitive types are ruining everything for all the people who just wanted to sit at home and watch “supermodels” walk around in “lingerie.”

During one segment of the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show filmed, model Karlie Kloss wore leopard-print and suede lingerie with turquoise jewelry and a traditional Indian headdress as the word “Thanksgiving” flashed in the background.

Now, Victoria’s Secret is cutting the “hot model” segment from the December 4^th broadcast for being politically incorrect after a backlash from American Indian groups.

All the lingerie company was trying to do was put some “hot chick” in lingerie and make it fit with the “Thanksgiving” theme of the segment.

The uproar over this is akin to French people getting angry over sexy “French maid costumes,” or Americans being mad about over “tri-cornered hats.”

An entire segment of the show was “flower” related. Did we see any “botanists” up in arms over “orchids and roses” being portrayed in a “sexy” light? No, not yet, anyway.

Victoria’s Secret issued a begrudging apology for the costume on Twitter:  ”We are sorry that the Native American headdress in our fashion show has upset individuals. The outfit will be removed from the broadcast.”

Kloss herself tweeted, ”I am deeply sorry if what I wore during the VS Show offended anyone. I support VS’s decision to remove the outfit from the broadcast.”

Why didn’t they just say it was a “tribute” to Senator Elizabeth Warren? On second thoughts I “shudder” to think what Warren would look like in that “outfit.”

Apparently nobody from the American Indian groups ever complained when “Pass-the-Bull” tried to “speak with forked tongue” pimping her faux Indian roots claiming to be 1/32 Cherokee.

Real Cherokees are becoming more and more incensed at this fraud, especially as it now turns out that some of Warren’s more provable ancestors likely participated in rounding up Cherokees for the forced eviction known as “The Trail of Tears”.

It becomes more and more obvious that the “Fake-A-Hontas” used her minority “ancestry” to gain affirmative action as a “woman of color” to be elected as a Senator.

What amazes me the most about this “sordid” tale is that Elizabeth Warren herself could have deflected it all so easily if she had an ounce of character. We all have our traditional family stories and lore we absorb without really checking it out thoroughly.

Even though it’s obvious Warren used her “bogus claims of ancestry” for the most blatant kind of “self-advancement” at the expense of others, all she ever had to say was, “Whoops! I always heard this from Grandpa and Grandma and just assumed it was true.” Sorry about that and it all would have blown over.

The problem, of course is that for a great many people on the Left, “lying” and “bending” the truth out of shape becomes so habitual and ingrained that they start to believe their own “horse manure” and simply can’t shut the “lying” off.