I am convinced there is a hitherto undocumented organ in the body of every
professional, opinion-having Conservative. Think of it as a kind of
overactive ideological bladder that fills up with bile every few days.
And irrespective of what atrocities Trump has committed on any given
day, to relieve the agony of their OIB, every 24 to 48 hours they absolutely
must find a Democrat to piss on.
Sometimes these vitriolic micturitions are swaddled in Both Sides Do It
diapers, and frequently -- like our example today -- the proximate cause of
the outburst is so stupid and trivial that it leaves readers scratching their
heads, wondering,
"Really? Someone actually got paid to be mad about that?"
But the cause isn't the point. Every 24 to 48 hours, these desperate
souls must find some Democrat somewhere on which to unleash their pent-up
bile, and as the corrosive acid of their creed begins to burn and sting, the
"cause" they will use as cover for their splenetic opinion becomes less and
less important.
And so, today, this. From The Atlantic:
Politicians Aren’t Cool Enough to Curse This Much
Political leaders once watched their language. Now they delight in using
obscenity.
By Tom Nichols
...Actually, the Mother of All Obscenities might be the one that includes
mother, and if you haven’t heard it lately, former Vice President of the
United States Kamala Harris would be happy to refresh your memory.
Addressing a gathering in Los Angeles a few days ago, Harris delivered her
verdict on the current Trump administration: “These motherfuckers are
crazy.”...
Nichols goes on to namecheck others, and ultimately relieves himself of the
balance of his bile into a big, Both Sides Do It diaper.
The Democrats have some true public-swearing champs, but President Donald
Trump and the wannabe tough guys who surround him are no slouches in the
profanity competition.
But he had to start his laundry list of disapproval with Harris.
Because that is his nature.
Also, for the record, Nichols knows nothing about what constitutes "cool".
Mona Charen has always been terrible. She's wired to loathe
Liberals: her entire career was built on carping and sneering at
Democrats. Exhibit A: The three books she wrote before finally getting
around to writing one in 2023 about the state of the GOP.
"Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame
America First." From the infamous Regnery publishing, who publish swine like Ann Coulter, Ted Cruz,
Newt Gingrich, Josh Hawley, David Horowitz and Michelle Malkin.
"Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (and the Rest of
Us)." From Sentinel, the dedicated conservative imprint within the Penguin Group.
They publish the likes of Amy Coney Barrett, Peggy Noonan, Mike Lee, Mitch
McConnell, Ann Coulter, and Rod Dreher
"Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch With Science, Love and Common
Sense."
Crown publishing, which publishes a cross section of different writers.
Her 2023 book consists of a bunch of her columns pasted together into
book-form, and don't worry kids, there is still plenty of bitching and moaning about Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama. For example, this is the header and lead
paragraph of Chapter 4 --
The Challenge for Republicans
Nov. 9, 2016
My feelings this morning are so radically mixed that my brain resembles a
Cuisinart. I cannot help but be glad that Hillary Clinton was defeated. I
am shaking my head in amazement about the Senate, and accordingly about
the Supreme Court...
-- and you will find nuggets like this buried here, there and everywhere --
President Barack Obama seeded his own speech with patriotic grace
notes, and though he recoils from Donald Trump, his horror at Trump's
style seemingly blinds him to their similarities. On substance, they are
more alike than not...
-- but taken together the columns tell the tale of a cold war relic who should have
been decommissioned decades ago slowing coming to the realization that
something had gone drastically wrong with her party, and her scrambling to find someone to blame other than people like her.
Charen is the sort of unbendingly commie-hatin', Reagan-revering Conservative
who would have rather gone to Republican Valhalla with Bill Clinton's blood on
her teeth than live to see (but of course never, ever admit) that the dirty,
hippy Left had been right about the Right all along.
And so as Trump and his cadre of Republican ghouls and grifters finally and
irrevocably bury every trace of her Party of Personal Responsibly, the best
Charen can manage is to watch it all from the clammy, petty safety of the Both
Sides Do It bunker.
The American Enterprise Institute paid Jonah Goldberg actual money to [it has been bruited about] have
Claude AI write this. But t'was I who added the emphasis.
Why Everyone Is Rushing to Label Themselves an ‘Independent’
By Jonah Goldberg Los Angeles Times October 01, 2025
Independents are so hot right now — and will be for the foreseeable
future.
According to a major survey commissioned by CNN, nearly half of all
Americans — 44% — call themselves independents while only 28% and 27%,
respectively, identify as Republicans or Democrats. I have a theory
as to why. But I have to throw some fancy terms to explain it.
“Independent” is what students of semiotics call an “empty
signifier,” a term that has very little, if any, substantive content. If
you describe yourself as an independent, I still have to ask you
additional questions about what you actually believe. All you’ve told me
to that point is that you reject a party label (believe me, I
sympathize).
It’s hard for young people to believe today, but Republican and
Democrat labels used to work much the same way. A little more than a
generation ago if you claimed to be on one side or the other, I’d have to
ask a follow-up question to figure out if you were conservative or
liberal, pro-life or pro-choice, for gun rights or against, etc.
Today, the same goes for independents, which used to be code for
“swing voters” or “centrists.” Not anymore. According to the survey, some
are “Democratic Lookalikes” (24%) and others are “Republican Lookalikes”
(12%). They reject the label but ultimately vote like they don’t. The rest
are among “The Checked Out” (27%), “The Disappointed Middle” (16%) and the
“Upbeat Outsiders” (22%). The demographics and ideologies of these groups
vary widely. In short, calling yourself an independent says something —
that you don’t like the party labels — but it isn’t a one-size-fits all
ideological or political signifier...
Yes, nonspecific essay addressee, why is everyone rushing to
label themselves as "Independent"?
What a daring and incisive question!
Why, why, why indeed?
Also, and apropos of nothing, we are quickly approaching the 16th
anniversary of this post from one of those dirty, disreputable hippy-types. The
sort of person who Jonah Goldberg loathes and blocked on Twitter because such
people always ruing the happyfuntalk because they carry around a
haversack full
of
damning receipts
from the Before Time and the After Time. The sort of low, perverse type
to whom the AEI would never pay real money to fire up old Claude AI and prompt
it to shart out 800 words on "Whither these so-called 'Independents?'".
16 years ago, AI didn't really exist outside of science
fiction. In fact, it was so long ago that they still sold porn at gas stations!
If you recall, 2009 was also the year Barack Obama was sworn into office,
thanks in no small part to the Republican Bush administration so comprehensively shitting
the bed that Barack Obama could win the 2008 election.
For the Right, 2009 was Year One of what would be an eight-year-long
racist primal scream: their reaction to a black Democrat being elected
president.
One of Jonah "Doughy Pantload" Goldberg's contributions to the maelstrom was
his 2008 "Liberals are the Real Nazis" tract called
"Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini
to the Politics of Meaning". By this time Goldberg had already auctioned off his soul to the National Review for remaindered prices and was busy pretending to ignore the slagging his book was getting from places like the Guardian UK ( “seriously flawed, bizarre and ultimately risible”) and sources like historian Robert Paxton, a leading scholar of fascism, who dismissed Goldberg’s book as “a conceptual mess" and other historians who described it variously as "poor scholarship" and "historical travesty".
In addition to lying about the Left, Goldberg argued in the book that American
Right was "immune to the fascist temptation" due to its commitment to
constitutionalism. A claim which, by 2022, had been so thoroughly
debunked as obviously ludicrous that he was forced to walk it back.
2009 was also the year that Mr. David Brooks used his New York Times to advise president Obama that Brooks had suddenly discovered the
existence of jillions of "independents" out there, all whom just so
happened to align ideologically with Brooks' own version of Republicanism, and
that if Obama knew what was good for him, he'd better pay heed to what these
"independents" wanted.
From me, 16 years ago and somehow completely unfunded by the AEI:
And since his schtick depends on squeezing a few extra drops out of the
same old lemons week after week, Bobo is never happier or more in his
element than when he is curled up in his NYT Snuggie, sipping cocoa from
his David Fucking Broder commemorative mug in front of a big, roaring
fire of Conventional Washington Wisdom, and repeating in well-modulated
tones what everyone else in D.C. is thinking. Which is why he let his
Villager spurs all the way out as he rode the subject of the
"independent" voter into the ground, opining in great, farty
word-pillows about the mores and folkways of a group of people who -- by
definition -- have no, definable commonality.
So after stitching together a couple of snippets from a couple of polls
into a big, floppy sack, Bobo dumped every loose button and paper-clip
of his own privileged, white, suburban, middle-aged, Boomer Burkean
bourgeoisie terror into it and called it analysis...
What Independents Want By
DAVID BROOKS
Liberals and conservatives each have their own
intellectual food chains. They have their own think tanks to provide
arguments, politicians and pundits to amplify them, and news media outlets
to deliver streams of prejudice-affirming stories.
Independents,
who are the largest group in the electorate, don’t have any of this. They
don’t have institutional affiliations. They don’t look to certain activist
lobbies for guidance. There aren’t many commentators who come from an
independent perspective. ...
The title of that long-ago post was
"The 'Independent' Granfalloon". In it I went into great detail
about what "granfalloon" meant and why it was the perfect definition of
"independent"
...Nobody knows what “independents” want, because “independent” as a modern
political category is a textbook example of what Kurt Vonnegut defined in
"Cat's Cradle" as a "granfalloon":
"...a proud and meaningless association of human beings"
Because “independent” can mean any-damn-thing, or nothing at all.
Consider
that if you defined “independent” as someone who, broadly speaking,
supported a Liberal agenda (not the imaginary,
shadow-puppets-made-out-of-Rush-Limbaugh-stool-samples “Liberal agenda” that
Conservatives have been using to scare stupid people into committing
economic suicide for 30 years, but the real Liberal agenda) but was not
welded to a particular candidate, or even to a particular party, then that
would describe me pretty well.
But I'm also quite sure that a
fair chunk of the the 5% of the voting public which -- just 24 hours before
the 2004 Presidential elections -- still couldn't quite make up their minds
whether to vote for Kerry/Edwards, or the lying, feeble-minded frat boy (and
his homicidal regent) who had fucked up everything he had ever touched
...consider themselves "independents".
Rebel nuns who might just
think that letting a rape victim have access to abortion services would not
be the end of the world?
Independents.
Snake-handling
queer-hating Leviticans who think the GOP is too gutless because it won’t
advocate rounding up Teh Gay and putting them in camps?
Independents.
Bunker-dwelling
survivalists?
Independents.
Pimple-faced 30-something
John Galt wannabees who masturbate themselves blind to “Atlas Shrugged”
because that hot chick in accounting won’t give them a second look, but
won’t she be sorry when Objectivists stop the engine of the world and people
like her will have to stand in line to offer their vajay-jays to the alpha
studs wealth producers!
Independents.
Klansmen who
want to smoke a little weed?
Independents.
America's
compulsive political middle-children who have been taught so thoroughly to
compromise their way out of any conflict that they will travel a 1,000 miles
just to find a fence to straddle?
The opinionless little ciphers
who just want to make sure they line up with a winner?
The moral
cowards wouldn’t pick a side with a gun pressed to their heads, because of
the terror of then being committed to actually doing something instead of
snarking their way through life declaring "Well, ya know, bote sides are
juss a buncha crooks anyway!" about every situation regardless of context
and circumstances?
If asked, I guarantee you all virtually of
those people would tell you that they think of themselves as “independent”...
I then explained in great detail who this latest group of late-blooming
independents appeared to be:
Those fucknozzles who, after giving Dubya the longest tongue bath in modern
political history while calling everyone else a traitor, started gagging on
the sheer tonnage of bullshit their creepy idolatry of George W. Bush was
requiring them to swallow and obediently regurgitate every fucking day,
that's who.
Most newly minted “independents” seem to be little
more than Republicans who are fleeing the scene of their crime, but at the
same time still desperately want believe in the inerrant wisdom of Rush
Limbaugh. They are completely incapable of facing the horrifying reality
that they have gotten every single major political opinion and decision of
their adult lives completely wrong, so instead they double-down on their
hatred of women and/or gays and/or brown people and/or Liberals, and blame
them for the miserable fuckpit their leaders and their policies have made of
their lives and futures.
Like German soldiers after the fall of
Berlin, they have stopped running away from the catastrophe they created
only long enough to burn their uniforms.
Remember, this was 16 years ago, when even whispering such things on tiny blogs
marked you as a pariah. Untouchable. Certainly unhirable by any
respectable institution.
Now, 16 years later, as long as you're in The Club, outfits like the AEI will
pay you to [it is rumored] ask AI to conjure you up 800 words about how "independents" are
anything but.
Watch closely as Ross Cardinal Douthat recycles the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz
"Team B" ruse as a meaty thumb on the scale justify his Both Sides Do It drivel
:
Progressivism in the last 10 years has pursued increasingly radical
measures through complex, indirect and bureaucratic means, using state
power subtly to reshape private institutions and creating systems that
feel repressive without necessarily having an identifiable repressor in
chief — McCarthyisms without McCarthy, you might say.
Over the same period, populism has consistently rallied around
charismatic outsider politicians who attack the existing political class
as hopelessly compromised and claim to have a mandate to sweep away any
rule or norm that impedes their agenda...
Those devilishly sinister Liberals strike again!
Somehow managing to be radical...yet indirect.
Repressive...yet subtle to the point of invisibility.
Steering movement of sweeping power and cruel intentions...with no leaders
or chains of command or any other form or visible
coordination.
Which, if you are unfamiliar, are some of the hallmarks of
every other imaginary bogeyman that clowns like Douthat have
conjured out of thin air to justify their despicable opinions.
In the 1980's it was the decrepit and dying Soviet Union that the neocons
fitted out with brand new seven league boots, invisible super-weapons and
inhumanly implacable purpose in order to rise to power. This is from
Thom Hartmann’s piece
“Hyping Terror for Fun, Profit — And Power” (Global Policy Forum /
Common Dreams), published
December 7, 2004.
Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of powerful new Soviet
WMDs were unproven - they said the lack of proof proved that
undetectable weapons existed - they nonetheless used their charges to
push for dramatic escalations in military spending to selected defense
contractors, a process that continued through the Reagan
administration.
But, trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they
had been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld,
Cheney, and Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet
WMDs.
Not only do we now know that the Soviets didn't have any new and
impressive WMDs, but we also now know that they were, in fact,
decaying from within, ripe for collapse any time, regardless of what
the US did - just as the CIA (and anybody who visited Soviet states -
as I had - during that time could easily predict). The Soviet economic
and political system wasn't working, and their military was
disintegrating.
With the fall of the USSR, the Neocons of the 1990s were stuck trying to
make Bill Clinton into the
Greatest Threat The Republic Has Ever Faced. If you remember
those days, you remember that lord knows they tried their best and spent a
fortune on it, but in retrospect pretty much everyone who went big on the
Impeachment of Bill Clinton ended up looking like a raving
idiot.
And having spent so much time and money on something so petty and trivial,
as the Bush Administration took power, the neoconservatives found
themselves with a seemingly insoluble political problem. As I wrote back in 2009:
...
After conspiring to bring about two of the most destructive events in
modern American history -- the impeachment of a US President over
trivia, and the probable theft of the subsequent Presidential election
-- to what God could Republicans possibly pray that their eight years
of insanity, venom and violence "might be wholly blotted out?”
On 09/11/01, their dark miracle came winging its way out of a clear,
blue sky...
In the 2000's, Saddam Hussein provided these same Merchants of Fear with
the all-purpose bogeyman against whom all real Murricans
were required to stand united. Because, and I quote:
“The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces
control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of
mass destruction were dispersed.
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad
and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
That was Donald Rumsfeld on ABC News' "This Week" on March 30,
2003.
And when it all blew up in his face, Rumsfeld did what all Conservatives
do when their lies collapse. He just fucking lied about it.
And so, once again, as the Right found itself without an imaginary external
threat sufficient to bind the MAGA morons to their Dear Leader, they
invented all those terrifying immigrant caravans which always seemed to
appear right around election time, and disappear after the election was
over.
Mexico. Wall. Rapists. Taking your jobs. Stealing your heath care. It was in all the
papers.
But once the engines of Republican fascism start to gear up for another
round of outrageous lies, censorship and brute repression, more lies are
needed. Gotta keep the squishes and wobblers on side, using the same,
reliable Big Lie that Conservatives always retreat to once things start to
get insane and bloody.
The Both Sides Do It lie.
And that's where mopes like Douthat come in handy. Because Douthat
doesn't need to pretend that the repressive fascism that his party is
rolling out doesn't exist. He just has to pretend that the Left is
just as bad. And to do it, all he has to do is as a few bricks to the mighty ziggurat of lies, slander and poisonous conspiracy-mongering about the Left which the Right has spent the last 50 years building, and which is now in full bloom all around us every day.
And Douthat does this by using his New York Times real estate just like Rummy
used his appearance on ABC News' "This Week" 22 years ago.
By declaring that knows where the invisible Liberal Repression WMD's are.
They're in the area around Harvard and MSNBC and east, west, south and north
somewhat.
So you're Newt Gingrich, and damn, but it has been quite a ride.
From bomb-throwing leader of the proto-MAGA orc legions, to Speaker of the
House where he was just two bullshit impeachments away from stealing the Big
Chair. So close it was almost like it was under his desk. You
know, like the secretary with whom he cheated on his second wife.
Because he loved Murrica too much!
Newt Gingrich is no stranger to hypocrisies. It’s just that his own
self-righteousness often gets in the way of admitting to them: “There’s no
question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt
about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my
life that were not appropriate,” the family-values candidate once famously
said about his multiple extra-marital affairs.
Then, sadness. Impeachment failure, then outed as an adulterer
himself. A corrupt and disgraced fraud cashiered from congress.
And if you were the sort of uncharitable person who would draw a straight like
through all of those mopes and degenerates to see what this trend was
headed, well, you would be forgiven for not being surprised that it'd
end up with a creepy Christian nationalist cipher and Trump sock-puppet
who thinks he Moses and gives off strong "I've got bodies buried in my
basement" vibes.
But joy comes in the morning!
Because then Gingrich went on to becoming David Gregory's personal career
reclamation project which, like gardening, required constant weeding and
fertilizing since Newt "Advocate of civilization, Definer of civilization, Teacher of the rules of
civilization, Leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces"
Gingrich could not keep his lying, racist yapper shut for two weeks at a
stretch, and so had to be brought back on Meet the Press over and over again
to have his career as "Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to have you on again"
cleaned, steamed and reblocked over and over again.
I covered all this to a fare-thee-well back during the Before Time, and in my
upcoming book,
"Holy Mother of God I am So Fucking Sick Of What a Gutless,
Fascist-Enabling Shitpile Our Legacy Media Has Been Forever." That's the working title. Since it's a children's books, I'll
probably have to change it to, I dunno,
"Fluffy Bunny's Adventures In The Fourth Estate".
For you longtime readers, yep, I'm talking about The Gingrich Rules.
From
July, 2012:
In the game of professional punditry there also clearly exists a special set
of rules designed with one person in mind. Or, rather, one sort of
person: Conservatism's parade of bomb-throwing, hate-mongering, race-baiting
bottom feeders. That breed which makes their daily bread from grifting
the Pig People by generating an endless flood of books, magazine articles,
broadcasts, speeches and videos all telling the GOP base over and over again
that their bigotries are noble and their paranoia is patriotic.
Of course, part of the downside of wallowing in the wingnut sewer and
trafficking in slander and lies is that, sooner or later, you become a toxic
mess. Your stink becomes unacceptable to the general public, which s
where the Sunday morning talk shows -- the Mouse Circus -- comes in.
Because despite having long ago devolved into a sinkhole of Beltway
centrist twaddle, it is still viewed by altogether too many people as a
bastion of Very Serious people -- it's the strip-mall of political opinion
where casual shoppers go to feel smart and validated.
And so a bargain is struck; the bottom feeders deliver a temporary hike in
the only thing these show's owners really care about -- audience share --
and, in exchange for being teevee friendly and keeping the worst of their
batshit crazy on a leash for a few minutes, their Mouse Circus deburrs the
bottom feeders' public image, replates and burnishes their credibility and
temporarily transfuses them with Seriousness, which can then be redeemed at
ten times its face value back among the Pig People.
And in the key to that bargain we find "The Gingrich Rules": an
agreement that the moderator will never, ever ask the bomb-throwing,
hate-mongering, race-baiting goon sitting directly across from them a single
question about their bomb-throwing, hate-mongering or race-baiting
activities. Instead they will be represented to the public merely as a
Conservative commentator or talk radio host or pundit who, at worst, might
be known for some "controversial" opinions, which the moderator will never
bother to explicate. "
And during the lean years, when the exchequer started running little
low, Gingrich could always "write" a new shitty book and lean on all the
Conservative infiltrators who had wormed their way into the media and
publishing worlds to flog it. Or, when things got really thin, hawk real
fake "Speaker's Hammers" guaranteed to have been autographed by the old perv
himself.
From Rachel Maddow 14 years ago.
A couple more failed runs for president, and then came another turn of the
wheel. Suddenly, a monster spawned by the cancer of Gingrich-style
Republican politics named Donald Trump is sweeping through the Republican
primaries, easily dispatching the best and brightest of the Republican
establishment. It was Springtime for Gingrich once again.
But by now Gingrich understood that tides can go in and out, so he made sure
all of his grifting side-hustles remained intact. From the blurb for
"Gingrich 360":
Discover a world of engaging books, documentaries, and educational toys at
the Gingrich 360 online store. Shop bestselling titles by Newt and Callista
Gingrich, including the beloved Ellis the Elephant series, and find unique
gifts that bring American history to life.
So having led you on this far, it'd be reasonable to ask, "Yes, yes, we know
all this. Newt's a liar and a fraud and an all around loathsome, poison
toad of a person, who is more responsible than almost anyone else for
grotesque state of American politics. So what's going on with him that
we have come all this way? What's new with Gingrich?"
And here's the thing. There is absolutely nothing new with Newt. He is
100% the same despicable, lying poison toad of a person he has always
been. Newt is an entirely known quantity.
Which is why this post isn't really about Gingrich.
This post is about the New York Fucking Times and this headline
.
This is the New York Fucking Times giving Newton Leroy Gingrich enough guest
essay real estate to both yell at Democrats for doing shut downs wrong [it’s
the Trump shut down] and rewrite his own history into a chest-thumping saga
about how, sure, it seemed like the Gingrich-led shutdowns during the
Clinton years were a disaster but, see, they were actually brilliant. Ya
see, Gingrich’s shutdown was a triumph of “strategy” [He likely got this
phrasing from Steve Bannon] while Democrats’ [again, it’s
Trump’s shut down] is a failure due to “bad messaging”.
In case you had forgotten, or weren't there at the time, this was President Clinton in the process of serving Gingrich's ass to him on a silver platter. FYI, it's a much longer video and, if you're interested, the fight was over balancing the budget. Quite the relic of the Before Time.
But it should also serve as a reminder that, in many ways, the Republican party has changed very little in the 30 years since Gingrich shut the government down for the second time. They are still fanatically committed to gutting programs that help working class Americans, middle class Americans and poor Americans, and they are still fanatically committed to huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
And the end result of that second Gingrich shutdown? From NPR:
There was no quick and easy solution to the dispute in 1995-96, either. Each side was certain that the public would back them. As it turned out, Gingrich and the GOP lost that particular bet. Polls at the time showed that the public put the blame on the House speaker and his party and that they wanted the government operating again.
Cracks formed in the Republican solidarity, and in a session of Congress held on New Year's Eve, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas signaled that the fight was over for his fellow Republicans.
"We ought to end this," Dole said on the Senate floor. "I mean, it's gotten to the point where it's a little ridiculous as far as this senator is concerned."
The government reopened days later. It was widely seen as a setback for the GOP, and the shutdown of 1995-96 became known as a cautionary tale for years to come.
As a final insult, the Times decided to not mention Gingrich’s own history of
shutdowns blowing up in his face, or his adultery, or corruption, his failed
attempt to impeach Bill Clinton, or his racism, or his incessant lying.
Instead, the New York Fucking Times reduced Newt Gingrich’s biography to these 11
words: “Mr. Gingrich, a Republican, is a former speaker of the House.”
Like asking Jeffrey Dahmer to toss off a few hundred words about his favorite recipes, and only telling the readers that he was, "Mr.
Dahmer, famous gourmand."
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." -- Matthew 7:15-16.
