The psychotic South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem admits that she shot and killed her 14-month-old dog, ‘Cricket’, who “attacked chickens”. In fact this moral degenerate was trying to "train" her child's pet dog to hunt and she didn't like its failures so wasn't paying attention when it turned its attention to chickens. 'Wha happen, mommy? You ordered me to hunt, didn't say which critter'. The monstrous bitch – a perfect fit for the MAGA cult – also admitted she took out a goat she claimed smelled “musky.” She reveals all this in her soon-to-be-released book, No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong With Politics and How We Move America Forward.
Move America forward? Or move America backward to butchering more innocents including people the Trump MAGA cult no longer has a use for?
'Never Trump' conservative Charlie Sykes offered a possible
explanation for Noem’s bestial behavior during a Monday, April 29 appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
Noem, Sykes argued, might have thought that the dog-shooting
story would impress Trump. Why not? A monster performing a monstrous deed to
impress another monster- who’s already gone on record asserting he plans to use
the military to put 11 million immigrants in detention camps if he’s
elected. No thought at all as to how
much that will cost the U.S. economy in taking millions of workers away from
doing jobs no American wants. But buttholes like Dotard Trump don’t process
such minutiae.
Sykes told "Morning Joe" hosts Joe
Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski:
”Look, this book is a campaign book. It
is a resume to be Donald Trump's vice president. And she thought it was a good
idea to include this story —let's tell this short about myself, how I took this
puppy and shot him in the gravel pit."
The conservative journalist/author continued, "So, why
would she have done this? The obvious explanation is she thought that Donald
Trump would like it. She thought that this would be a net-positive for her. “
And I believe it was, given the dictator-wannabe must be looking for a sidekick to assist in his planned retribution rampage. That's assuming there are sufficient 'swing state' Americans distracted enough, (e.g. by Gaza, by inflation etc.) to either vote for the cockroach, not vote at all, or vote 3rd party.
Hell, one can certainly imagine Trump considering Noem as VP candidate given she now checks all the 'boxes' for retribution, violence, and moral degeneracy - like him. And we know he also has a fetish for all manner of violence up to murder, and possibly beyond. He talks about shooting shoplifters, extrajudicial murders of drug dealers and offing protesters. Back in 2015 he boasted he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it. And only recently he even insisted that the decorated Gen. Mark Milley ought to have been “executed” for treason. He also confided to former AG Bill Barr that he has considered executing all his political enemies.
The latest TIME issue now on the newsstands,
also delivers in black and white Trump's plans for a new term, assuming voters won't mind if he gets convicted in the NY hush money case.
Those plans include giving police what's called "qualified immunity" so they can shoot anyone on sight for committing a perceived illegal act and not face any consequences.
For Trump wannabe adviser Stephen Miller – who bears an astounding likeness to Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels,
What's not to like, especially for a wannabe Fuhrer like Donald Trump?
After all it was Miller who had conceived of locking up immigrant infants barely five years ago. He probably mused: “Heck if she can shoot a pup and a goat we can probably get her to help execute immigrants in our detention camps.”
For those who believe this beyond the pale or "histrionic", think again. My late German friend Kurt Braun,
Back in 1978 he showed us film-videos of Nazi depredations from his archives. As a former Hitler Youth (pressed into service under threat to his mother) he also recalled how part of their training had entailed shooting and killing small animals: kittens, puppies, rabbits. As Kurt explained it:
"They believed if we could take the lives of small, defenseless animals, it would break down any mental or emotional barriers to taking the lives of humans."
Squint hard enough and perhaps one can see how Gov. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., thought it was a winning political move to brag about murdering a puppy. It's the same trolling strategy used by MAGA Republicans like Donald Trump, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas: Say something extremely evil, stupid, or both. Draw the inevitable liberal outrage or mockery. Play the victim, claiming that it's more proof the "elites" hate the common sense working folk of MAGA. Then sit back and watch the dollars and followers roll in.
For Noem, however, her tale of shooting her dog Cricket is not working out quite as planned. Sure, she got the predictable outrage and disgust from Democrats. But she also seems to have alienated the very Trump supporters she was trying to impress with her bloodthirsty tale. Fox News let their displeasure be known by doing a round-up story of conservative social media influencers denouncing Noem, often with quite harsh language. "Did she just intentionally end her career?" asked trollish podcaster Tim Poole. Other high-profile right-wingers blasted Noem as an "Absolute Psycho" and called for her to be "criminally charged for animal abuse." Even the notorious right-wing troll Catturd — who has 2.4 million Twitter followers because he acts as vile as his name suggests — drew a line at killing your child's beloved pet.
You’ve heard about the death of little Cricket, right, a nice little pup, dead at 14 months old, which isn’t even all that old in dog years. He (or perhaps she, the details aren’t entirely clear) was shot to death, with malice aforethought, by Kristi Noem, the not-so-honorable Governor of South Dakota. She hated Cricket. She was unrepentant about killing the little dog. He (or perhaps she) didn’t take to training, didn’t like being controlled, wouldn't always do what other creatures would have her (or him) do. Like Bartleby the Scrivener, the dog just preferred not to. In other words, Cricket had something of a mind of her (or his) own, and boy howdy, the right-wingers hate that in a person, and especially in a dog. Not a good quality in any sort of bitch at all, apparently. Poor Cricket, whatever the pup’s gender, was too much like too damn many human females, who will, if given half a chance, do as they damn well please, too, right down to aborting their fetuses. Women: can’t live with ‘em, can’t shoot ‘em.
But puppies don’t have similar legal protections. So Governor Noem took Cricket out to a little gravel pit on her back 40 and shot him (or her) to death without so much as blinking an eye or a howdy do. No one fucks with chicks like Kristi if they or it knows what’s good for ‘em. She’s a badassed mother, and she knows to head to Texas when she needs to get her teeth fixed purty enough to nail you with her killer smile.
And:
by Jaime O’Neill | April 30, 2024 - 6:22am | permalink
Excerpt:
Which brings us to this bitch below, another heartless Republican who can be utterly callous even when it came to killing her own little doggy, Cricket, a 14-month-old pup the Governor of South Dakota said she "hated." I repeat, "hated." Her word, not mine.
So, what was a mother to do? Cricket just had to die. Who but lily-livered socialists, Dems, fags, or weak feminist sisters would think otherwise? They won't man up, but she sure as hell will. Trump has made it clear how much he hates dogs, and he's her guy. Need a doggie duster? Who ya gonna call?
She said in her political bio (coming soon to a book store near you, should there be one) that she did it because the dog wouldn't behave and couldn't be trained. So, as is often the case with fascists, and as Trump has said so often about so many things, she had no choice but to take it out back and shoot it. Nothing else to be done. She couldn't think to find someone who might be a little more patient with the attempts to train the mutt. That would be inconvenient, and it might involve having to deal with people who had more compassion than it is generally reasonable to expect right wingers to tolerate.
So. bang-bang, a little doggy death whining and the problem is solved. Then you brag about it to potential voters who love them some good women who do what needs to be done and don't mind getting their hands dirty. Or bloody. Kristi wanted it known that she's nothing like those candy-ass left-wing women who only neuter their husbands and boyfriends, guys who don't have much in the way of balls, anyway. Shooting a no-account mutt would surely score points with "the base." Their kinda gal, just as Joni Ernst was when she boasted of castrating hogs to win the votes of Iowans.
Read the short passage below then answer the questions on it which follow, by selecting the most logical choice:
Loyola University, New Orleans, provided me the opportunity of hearing and seeing perhaps the foremost Existentialist philosopher in the world at the time: Jean-Paul Sartre. He had been invited by Loyola's Jesuits to debate the Christian Existentialist Gabriel Marcel at the Loyola University Fieldhouse in early 1965. The Fieldhouse, with a capacity of 3,000, was packed. (The semester, my first at Loyola, had begun in September 1964.)
The debate was conducted in the language (French) of each of the opponents and translated into English by Loyola's head of Language Studies. It lasted nearly 2 hours and it must be admitted that Sartre had the advantage from the get go. It appeared to many Marcel had not been able to coherently formulate exactly what "Christian Existentialism" meant and was also a newly minted convert to Roman Catholicism. Sartre also had a leg up given his massive work, 'Being and Nothingness' was already available at the Loyola Bookstore, and I made sure to purchase a copy prior to the event:
Sartre's core concept was "bad faith" and he emphasized it in the debate. The most serious transgression an authentic being or person could make, according to Sarte, was to succumb or surrender to bad faith. By "bad faith" Sartre meant going against your own interior barometer to find an authentic Self. In other words, taking the easy or conformist path, to "go along to get along". It made life relatively easy (few conflicts) but ultimately led to despair since an artificial life was substituted for an authentic one. In the attaining authenticity, one bore total responsibility for the direction of his life, which also incepted a degree of anguish.
As Sartre explained on p. 73:
"In anguish freedom is anguished before itself inasmuch as it is
instigated and bound by nothing. Someone will say, freedom has just
been defined as a permanent structure of the human being; if anguish manifests
it then anguish ought to be a permanent state of my affectivity. But, on the
contrary, it is completely exceptional. How can we explain the rarity of
the phenomenon of anguish?.....
Anguish in fact is the recognition of a possibility as my
possibility; that is, it is constituted when consciousness sees itself
cut from its essence by nothingness or separated from the future by its very
freedom. This means that a nihilating nothing removes me from all excuse
and that at the same time what I project as my future excuse is always
nihilated and reduced to the rank of simple possibility because the future
which I am remains out of my reach."
Sartre is basically saying - as he did in the debate - that anguish was spawned from the recognition of personal freedom by the individual consciousness. That freedom entails one or more choices of possible paths, possible futures. This is given one choice forecloses all others or in his words is "nihilated". This in response to Gabriel Marcel's claim there was a deeply personal meaning of life bound to our engagement with it and one choice made - provided it's personal - need not extinguish others. If one wished to be a priest he could, but he could also be a scientist simultaneously.
But Sartre viewed such a double choice with skepticism, given science and religion were clearly at odds (See e.g. the links at bottom). If then a man was a responsible scientist, who adhered to it natural laws and principles, he simply could not believe in the supernatural flotsam and jetsam required to be a priest. (E.g. a man walking on water, raising the dead from graves, a virgin who gives birth etc. etc.) To Sartre this exemplified bad faith and was not being true to oneself.
As he noted (B&N, p. 101):
"If a man is
what he is bad faith is forever impossible and candor ceases to be his ideal
and becomes instead his being. But is man what he is?"
In the last
question Sartre suggested that with consciousness of being it may not be so easy to be what one is. One would have to be conscious of all the pitfalls,
for example, if one were to be a totally free being all the time.
As Sartre poses the quandary (ibid.):
"In this
sense it is necessary that we make ourselves what we are. But what are we
if we have the constant obligation to make ourselves what we are, if our mode
of being is having the obligation to be what we are?"
It
is from this secondary quandary that Sartre takes issue with the claim of sincerity, say for the hypothetical priest-scientist, i.e.,
p. 105:
"What can be
the significance of the ideal of sincerity except as a task impossible to
achieve, of which the very meaning is in contradiction with the structure
of my consciousness. To be sincere we said is to be what one is. That
supposes that I am not originally what I am."
This
then leads to Sartre's harsh conclusion (p. 109):
"Thus the
essential structure of sincerity does not differ from that of bad faith since
the sincere man constitutes himself as what he is in order not to be it.
This explains the truth recognized by all that one can fall into bad
faith through being sincere.... Total, constant sincerity as a constant effort
to adhere to oneself is by nature a constant effort to disassociate oneself
from oneself. A person frees himself from himself by the very act with
which he makes himself an object for himself."
For
Sartre (p. 112):
"The true
problem of bad faith stems evidently from the fact that bad faith is
faith. It cannot be either a cynical lie or a certainty if certainty is
the intuitive possession of the object. But if we take belief
as meaning adherence of being to its object when the object is not given or is
given indistinctly, the bad faith is belief, and the essential problem of
bad faith is a problem of belief."
In his April, 1965 PLAYBOY interview (p. 72), Sartre is direct about this matter of belief (e.g. in God) and freedom:
"If I have this theory of freedom it's precisely because I do not believe in God."
In this response, again, he is
reinforcing his earlier position that bad faith is belief, in God, demons,
witches, whatever. Elements and aspect that do not conform to reality. So he makes clear that - based on his existentialist
position- any existentialist atheist cannot allow belief in an unproven claim or existent. Hence, a priest cannot be a scientist and vice versa. It is as much an oxymoron as claiming there can be a square circle. We see in the Playboy interview:
And here Sartre's concept of radical freedom is revealed, e.g.:
That such freedom is "not a cheerful thing" would be self-evident to anyone who has made a clean and clear break from his or her earlier formed background, say like a former Roman Catholic becoming an atheist.
I guess I made that hard choice, after performing a test (in junior year of HS) for "transubstantiation" on a communion wafer to see if it was really the "body of Christ". Alas, a starch test performed in the Pace chemistry lab disclosed the consecrated wafer to be starch, aka carbohydrate, as I suspected. No trace of protein. No corporeal substance.
In effect, Sartre's debate (as well as his monograph) confirmed for me I was already on the path of authenticity (for me) and I would be unable to go back to simply being even a nominal Roman Catholic. What Sartre's debate and book - thanks to the Loyola Jesuits did- was to flesh out the form of atheism I would adopt based on a radical freedom rooted in existentialism. It basically confirmed and consolidated suspicions I already had, thereby propelling me further.
See Also:
Kudos To A Courageous High School Atheist And Her Award -Winning Essay
And:
As I noted in my March 27th post Trump never should have been a candidate and allowed to campaign at all after launching the Jan. 6th insurrection. He ought to have been disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th amendment, i.e.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Frankly the bastard ought to have been hung by now - and then maybe drawn and quartered like the Brits did to traitors in the olden days. But failing that we have the so-called "hush money" (read: election interference) trial and case which will reveal to one and all what a loathsome piece of orange carrion this maggot is. It's blatant election interference given the rat smoked his Reepo opponents (including Rubio and Cruz) using devastating "news" from the National Enquirer rag and its head honcho David Pecker. All this came out Tuesday and much more is to come today. Anyway, here are other voices weighing in on the trial which the media has covered breathlessly and was originally deemed not worth the cost of paper or digital bytes.
by Amanda Marcotte | April 26, 2024 - 5:58am | permalink
In his opening statement in the People v. Donald Trump, defense attorney Todd Blanche told the Manhattan jury to gaze upon the criminal defendant and see a devoted family man. "He’s a man. He’s a husband. He’s a father," Blanche said of the former president accused of election interference. "He’s a person just like you and just like me." Hamfisted as it may be, it was a play by Blanche to distance his cranky, often sleepy client from what promised to be days, if not weeks, of testimony detailing a tawdry conspiracy to pay hush money to an adult film actress in order to cover up what sounds like rampant adultery.
There are many obvious pitfalls in this effort to recast Trump in the image of a suburban sitcom dad. The biggest might be one very noticeable absence in the courtroom. As a reporter who was pointedly ignored by Trump asked on Tuesday: "Where's Melania?"
It's not just the failed fashion model-turned-Mrs. Trump #3 who hasn't shown up in support. None of Trump's five children, or their spouses, have stood by his side in court, either. His two adult sons would rather spend time screening hypothetical future political appointments for "loyalty" than bother to show their father any in-person care at court. His eldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, is posting photos of her fancy vacations rather than staying in New York with her father.
by Amanda Marcotte | April 24, 2024 - 6:50am | permalink
While this falls far short of the punishment he deserves, there was considerable satisfaction to be gained from reports that Donald Trump spent much of the first week of his first criminal trial sitting in silence listening to mean tweets about him read aloud in court. For hours at a time, potential jurors in his New York "hush-money" trial were interviewed to determine whether they could judge the ex-president with an open mind. In the process, both past social media posts and in-the-moment honest opinions were made public.
Trump is such a famous narcissist that he literally has a woman who follows him around with a wireless printer to feed him a steady supply of online praise. Hearing what people outside the paid shills have to say was, all reports suggest, very upsetting for the former president. He glowered and eventually tried to leave the courtroom so quickly that he had to be told to sit down by the judge.
And:
by Elizabeth Preza | April 23, 2024 - 7:05am | permalink
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Monday detailed Donald Trump’s frustration with courthouse security as “a few dozen” supporters “are kept cornered off a bit of a distance” from the former president’s Manhattan “hush money” trial.
Opening statements in the Manhattan district attorney’s 34 felony count case against Trump began Monday morning as prosecutors alleged the former president lied “over and over and over” in an “illegal” conspiracy to hide hush money payments to adult film star Stephanie Clifford, whose stage name is Stormy Daniels, the New York Times reports.
According to Collins, Trump is growing increasingly frustrated as he views “this all through the lens of the campaign trail.”
“I think big picture, when you look at what Trump has been saying, his mindset going into this, he’s complaining about the gag order incessantly,” Collins told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. "I’m told privately the idea that he can't directly attack the judges family, the prosecutors in this case — he can go after [Manhattan District Attorney] Alvin Bragg— but not other members of the team … it has been a big thing of his.”
And:
by Carl Gibson | April 24, 2024 - 6:59am | permalink
If former President Donald Trump is convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison, it's likely his permanent Secret Service detail would follow him to the cell block.
Since 1965, the U.S. Secret Service has been required by statute to protect all former presidents of the United States and their spouses for life, unless they decline protection. This means that Trump could theoretically have his personal security team with him — even if he's an inmate.
According to a Tuesday New York Times report, the logistics of incarcerating a former president are already being discussed now that his first criminal trial is officially underway. The topic of how Trump's Secret Service protection would operate in a prison environment initially emerged after this week's gag order hearing in Judge Juan Merchan's courtroom.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his team of prosecutors have argued that Trump should be fined $1,000 for each instance of him allegedly violating Merchan's gag order. They also stressed that the gag order — which was meant to prohibit Trump from attacking trial witnesses, court staff and their families — could also be enforced by incarceration of up to 30 days should financial penalties prove ineffective (prosecutors did not call for Trump to be jailed over the current alleged violations).
by Heather Digby Parton | April 27, 2024 - 6:52am | permalink
Donald Trump held a little rally at a construction site in New York before his trial commenced on Thursday morning. He glad-handed the workers and passed out pamphlets that claimed he would end Biden's electric vehicle mandate. They all seemed to like him but, of course, they would, as Fox News reported that the attendees were solicited and vetted by the Trump campaign. In fact one of the "workers" interviewed at the event was a former staffer of disgraced GOP congressman George Santos:
See Also:
