Comedian Artie Lange Proves That Howard Stern Has Become A Total Kiss-Ass Liberal

RELATED: Howard Stern’s Gushing Over Ellen DeGeneres Dance Bit Shocks Comic

Hollyweird Actor Johnny Depp Is 'Proud' of 16-Year-Old Daughter For Coming Out As 'Sexually Fluid'

PinkNews.com:

Lily Rose Depp revealed her sexuality by featuring in a new LGBT charity campaign.

The model and daughter of Johnny Depp has made a subtle statement about her sexuality – by taking part in a quirky new campaign aimed at promoting society’s inclusiveness and acceptance of LGBT people in America.

Photographer iO Tillet Wright – who is behind the ‘Self Evident’ campaign – shared a picture on social media with Miss Depp, praising her decision to come out in order to help spread the campaign’s ‘We Are You’ message.

“I’m so proud of my baby girl @lilyrose_depp,” the artist commented. “She decided she wanted to be in @selfevidentproject because she falls somewhere on the vast spectrum, and I couldn’t be happier to welcome her to the family. 

“She’s a tiny gem of a good human. #prouduncle #weareyou.”

It is still unclear where on the spectrum Depp falls, but fellow activists have welcomed her decision to use her personal experience to help others deal with their sexuality.

A number of other celebrities have leant their voice to the campaign including Sia, Kylie Minogue and Transparent star Gaby Hoffman.

Used to be a time when parents were 'proud' of their kids taking their first steps or bringing home a good report card or learning how to drive, etc. But thanks in part to Godless, Hollyweird liberals like Depp (who's married to an openly bisexual woman), the usual mantra required to be 'proud' of your kid has certainly gone....wayward, to say the least. And of course, a young, pubescent 16-year-old certainly knows herself enough to 'self-identify', right?

RELATED: VIDEO: Meet Devina Keswani, The First Grader Transitioning From Male to Female

Ted Cruz Pwnes Liberal CNBC Moderators @ GOP Debate

WaPo.com:

Attendees at Wednesday night’s CNBC debate likely emerged hoarse into the Boulder, Colo., evening, thanks to Sen. Ted Cruz. With a major-league windup, the tea party candidate threw a beanball right at one of the country’s least popular professions: CNBC’s questions, charged Cruz, “illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media … Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues people care about?”

With the NBC peacock behind him, Cruz basked in the resulting roar. Pollster Frank Luntz tweeted, “Ted Cruz’s focus group dials hits 98 with his attack on media bias. That’s the highest score we’ve ever measured. EVER.”

Like most media attacks, this one was imprecise, bombastic and un-fact-checkable, which is precisely why quibbling about coverage is such a campaign mainstay. CNBC’s question to Carson, for instance, concerned the feasibility of his tax plan, a classic important issue. And the problem facing Sen. Marco Rubio is something that every grade schooler can appreciate — attendance.

RELATED: Why Did The CNBC Republican Debate Unite America In Hate?

Media Coverage of High School Football Deaths is Sensationalism at Its Worst

Mediaite.com:

If you’ve been following the news over the past few months, no doubt you’ve heard about the recent spate of high school football players killed playing the sport. What was once considered a local tragedy has become a national story as outlets have begun counting each death and weaving a narrative: high school football, once considered a harmless past-time, is claiming more and more lives.

The seventh and most recent death was covered by CNN, CBS, USA Today, NBC, ESPN, Fox News, Sports Illustrated, New York Times, Washington Times, and Yahoo News. Previous deaths were also covered by People, ABC, The Guardian, Reuters, MSNBC, The Washington Post… it’s harder to find a national outlet that hasn’t covered the story. And schools are listening: CBS reports that in the wake of mounting casualties, some schools are closing their football programs all together.

You know it must be scary, because CNN even got its graphics team to animate two CGI football players tackling each other (“Is high school football worth the risk?” the segment asked).

All of which is baffling, given that the frequency of high school football deaths hasn’t increased at all, and death rates remain extremely low.

In the past two decades, there were 282 deaths as a result of high school football, or 14.1 annually. This year there’s been seven, about halfway through the season. In short, the rate of football deaths has remained completely constant.

The chances of dying during a high school football game have also always been absurdly low. 1.1 million high schoolers play the sport every year, so even if the rate of death doubled overnight, they’d have about a 0.00001% of dying before the season is out. In fact, high school football isn’t even the deadliest high school sport; it’s less dangerous than water polo, softball, and field hockey, and roughly as dangerous as lacrosse.

What then justifies all the sudden media attention? It should go without saying that every sporting death is a tragedy, especially when the victims are so young. But hundreds of high schoolers die every day of equally tragic causes and fail to make front pages and television screens across the nation. Why should football be singled out?

The simple answer is because right now at the highest level of the sport, there is a massive scandal surrounding the National Football League’s handling of concussions. In a recent study, a whopping 96% of former NFL players’ brains were found to have suffered permanent damage. The league was forced to pay $1 billion in settlements to players who allege they covered up the risks of repeated concussions.

RELATED:  High school football needs to gear up after deaths

MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry: Don’t Say ‘Hard Worker,’ Because It’s Offensive to Slaves

Mediaite.com:

MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry took offense to a guest’s use of the term ‘hard worker’ Saturday, arguing that it diminished the experiences of slaves.

“If there’s somebody who is a hard worker when he goes to Washington, it’s Paul Ryan,” argued conservative guest Alfonso Aguilar. Harris-Perry didn’t disagree but wasn’t a fan of his word choice.

“I just want to pause on one thing, because I don’t disagree with you that I actually think Mr Ryan is a great choice for this role,” she said. “But I want us to be super careful when we use the language ‘hard worker.’ Because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like.”

Harris Perry told Aguilar (who at this point looked hopelessly baffled) that “in the context of relative privilege, I just want to point out, that when you talk about work-life balance and being a hard worker, the moms who don’t have health care who are working, we don’t call them hard workers. We call them failures, people who are sucking off the system.”

“Really, y’all do!” she continued as Aguilar shook his head. “That’s really what you do!”

What a stupid, stupid woman.

RELATED:  Turns Out Melissa Harris-Perry Uses the Term ‘Hard Work’ All the Time

Bad News From Those Good Unemployment Numbers: 100 Million Americans Over the Age of 16 That Are Not Working

Townhall.com:

Wow, did you see the new jobs numbers? Unemployment is down to 5.1%. In the current definition of full employment (during the 1960’s it was a 4% unemployment rate) we are getting near that point. In fact, the unemployment rate is now lower than it was anytime during the Reagan presidency. We have had 67 consecutive months of job growth. The unemployment rate has dropped almost 5% from the high point of the Obama administration in October 2009. With all this good news why are things so bad?

You may have heard something about a controversy regarding the unemployment numbers. There is focus on such matters as underemployment which for example having someone with a college degree waiting tables or bartending for lack of any quality opportunities for a person with their educational qualifications. Or you may have heard about the many people working part-time jobs due to lack of full-time opportunities or employers attempting to circumvent the rules established by Obamacare which states that a full-time employee reaches that status at 30 hours per week.

What we really need to spotlight is the crushing economic effect of a lower labor participation rate (LPR). There are now 100 million Americans over the age of 16 that are not working. The Obama Administration keeps running out the deceit that this is because of all the baby boomers retiring. The fact is that the labor force participation rate for the age group 16 to 24 is only 55.1%. That is a reduction of over 10% from 66% during the 1990’s. It is also down over 5% (60.8%) from 2005. Sure myopic minimum wage increases are harming the employment of this age group with the least work experience, but that is not the total explanation.

The Obama manipulation gets worse because the LPR is lower for the prime working years of 25-54 years old. In 2000 the LPR for this age group was almost 85%. It was down to 83% when the recession started, but has now plummeted to 80.7%. It is clear the baby boomers are not the only source of reduction in the LPR.

You may wonder why this is such a big deal. The LPR for September 2015 was 62.4%. That is 3.7% less than August, 2005 exactly ten years earlier. One can argue this reduction in rate has to do with the “Great Recession.” Not true. If you review the Dept. of Labor statistics you see virtually unstopped monthly decline in the LPR during the entire Obama Presidency. From the point that the recession was pronounced over the LPR has steadily declined by 3.3%.

RELATED:  Obama Economy: Black Unemployment for Teens 6Xs National Unemployment Rate

Ann Coulter Stuns Raven Symone Into Silence With ‘Watermelondrea’ Reminder

Mediaite.com:

Ann Coulter appeared on today’s episode of The View, where she came under heavy fire for her continuing love for Donald Trump and her own railing against immigration.

The segment began with Coulter talking about her book Adios America, where she said that by and large, illegal immigrants are from “backwards cultures” and are coming in to leech off of American generosity.

Ana Navarro reminded Coulter that neither she nor fellow host and immigrant Padma Lakshmi did any such thing, and grilled Coulter on how she can use her rhetoric without being of Native American descent.

After Coulter’s counter-argument, Raven Symone followed-up by asking about how she can talk about such a vital issue with her inflammatory language.

“Why do you think that’s important to mud-sling and have these words that obviously touches the hearts and souls of so many people in America?,” Symone asked.

“I’m at least talking about policy, you have a position on what people’s names should be. Watermelondrea,” Coulter shot back. “I’m talking about a government policy that affects all Americans and immigrants and the people living here, and is harming our country.”

Coulter’s remark was a reference to Symone’s recent controversy after saying she would not hire anyone who had a “ghetto”-sounding name. While Symone has since apologized for her remark, Coulter’s retort stunned her into silence as the discussion continued.

Honestly, Ann Coulter versus teh weak-minded raven Symone wasn't a fair fight to begin with.

RELATED:  Ann Coulter: Paul Ryan All Talk, No Action on Helping Poor

Paul Ryan Taps GOP Power Broker David Hoppe for Top Job

LATimes.com:

Less than a year ago, after Republicans rolled up big majorities in the 2014 congressional elections, their leaders set out to show the nation that conservatives were up to the challenge of governing.

"The logjam in Washington has been broken," House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared. "We will make it our job to prove the skeptics wrong."

So far, alas, the skeptics have been right. The GOP's big majority in the House became a curse, not a blessing; little of the legislation that Boehner and McConnell sought has passed. Instead, the GOP's zealously conservative Freedom Caucus pushed Boehner out of office and blocked the rise of his chosen successor, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield).

"We are not solving the country's problems; we are only adding to them," Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) acknowledged last week as he announced his decision to seek the speaker's chair.

By all accounts, Ryan is likely to win the job easily. Last week, he won support from all three wings of the House's factionalized Republicans. That will give him a chance to start over.

"We can show the country what a common-sense conservative agenda looks like," he told his colleagues.

Still, Ryan faces the same challenge that brought down Boehner and McCarthy: the Freedom Caucus, which not only spurns bipartisan compromises but has made its first goal to purge the GOP of its moderates.

And, amazingly, some Freedom Caucus members consider Ryan, a thoroughgoing conservative by any traditional definition, to be dangerously moderate too. Never mind that Mitt Romney chose Ryan as his running mate in 2012 because the congressman had championed bills to slash domestic spending and turn Medicare into a voucher plan. Ultras in the Freedom Caucus distrust Ryan because, as chairman of the House's tax-writing committee, he made a bipartisan budget deal to keep the government running in 2013. (Any deal had to be bipartisan because the Democrats had a majority in the Senate that year.)

Others worry because he long supported bipartisan efforts for comprehensive immigration reform, even though he's abandoned that goal in the face of grass-roots opposition.

One even derided Ryan for wanting to preserve time to spend with his young family. "It's like interviewing a maid for a job and she says, 'I don't clean windows,'" Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), told the Hill.

Remarkably, Ryan met these truculent revolutionaries halfway, even though he was already the choice of most House Republicans. The Freedom Caucus demanded changes in House rules to reduce the speaker's power; Ryan agreed that the GOP conference should consider their ideas. The caucus asked him to promise that he would never allow a floor vote on any measure unless a majority of Republicans supported it (the "Hastert Rule"); Ryan agreed.

If the GOP can't get behind Ryan it'll be just another win for the anti-God Left.

RELATED:  Paul Ryan taps GOP power broker David Hoppe for top job

Glamour Magazine Names Man with Penis 'Women of the Year'

TheFederalist.com:

To prove either that they have reached the pinnacle of patriarchal leftism, or that they are making the biggest joke in the history of mankind (on us), Glamour magazine has named Caitlin nee Bruce Jenner “Woman of the Year.” To celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of this award, Reese Witherspoon will accompany him on the December cover.

This is not only absurd, but patriarchal posturing at its finest; not to mention an insult to real women everywhere.

It was all fun and games—except when it wasn’t—when Jenner announced he was going to begin playacting a woman for the foreseeable future. As if that wasn’t enough, the transgender lobby prodded their ideal posterboy further Left. Next, ESPN awarded him with its Arthur Ashe Courage Award, and he secured his own reality show, “I Am Cait.”

Enough is enough. Glamour goes too far. Jenner cannot be woman of the year because—kids, close your eyes—he has a penis. Jenner might feel like he is a woman, he might want to be a woman, he might be living as a woman, but thoughts do not generate biology or reality. (I’d like to think I’m a millionaire and living in Turks and Caicos year-round, but that doesn’t make it so.)

The fact that Glamour is even passing this off as some kind of convoluted, uber-progressive fact is absolutely mind-bending. It’s as if we’ve taken the blue pill a long time ago and Neo is actually Trinity. When “The Matrix” is the only working analogy, we have a problem.

This Is a Cultural Ploy

The progressive left is to culture what Hollywood is to “House of Cards:” Sure, there’s some real elements incorporated, but some things get exaggerated—or altogether lost—in the shuffle. Grant it, this is Glamour. It’s not like we expected them to pick Laura Bush as woman of the year. So one could consider the source and just as easily shrug it off. But as a college professor once said, “A movie is never just a movie,” and likewise a magazine cover is never just a magazine cover.

When conservatives start finally accepting how the deep end the Left is with their anti-God mantra and when said mantra starts biting them in the ass, only then will we all be better off and can start fighting back.

RELATED:  WTF? Caitlyn Jenner Named Woman Of The Year

Megyn Kelly Tears Into the Media for Deciding Hillary Won Benghazi Hearing

Mediaite.com:

Megyn Kelly opened her show tonight really letting the mainstream media have it for quickly constructing the narrative that Hillary Clinton won the Benghazi hearing and emerged largely unscathed.

Kelly brought up an email uncovered yesterday showing Clinton emailing the Egyptian prime minister saying they knew the Benghazi attack was not about the anti-Muslim YouTube video, but was instead a planned terrorist attack.

She said this was a pretty big deal, but instead the media narrative has been of the “she won, it’s over, move on” variety.

Kelly brought up all the glowing media coverage of Clinton, as if there was a huge narrative being created to give Clinton the big win over the Republicans.

This is to be expected as the liberal media is hands in deep to make sure Billary is the next POTUS. And Republicans look like fools for all their current infighting, much less hearings that while important, will have no real impact on the polls come November 2016. I say continue to go after Hillary's changing positions on issues that matter, go after her entire record as an abysmal, do-nothing Secretary of State, go after her on social conservative policies that matter to voters and finally, go after her use of the gender card, go after phony liberal voters who are choosing the more centrist Hillary over the clearly more liberal Bernie Sanders, go after her husband too--there's a reason Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000 and it wasn't just because he was Al Gore.

RELATED: Is the mainstream media in the tank for Clinton?