KFC selling deep-fried chicken skin in Indonesia.

How does Indonesia get so lucky?

Newshub: KFC is selling bags of nothing but deep-fried chicken skin in Indonesia.

Prepare your arteries - KFC is selling bags of nothing but deep-fried chicken skin - at least in Indonesia.

As everyone knows, the best part of any KFC chicken meal is on the outside. Succulent, crispy, and coated in the Colonel's secret herbs and spices, it's the perfect combination of fat, salt and flavour.

So far, the snack is only available at six locations in Indonesia: MT Haryono, Salemba, Cideng, Kemang, Kalimalang and Kelapa Gading.

However it's already received a rapturous response from fans, who call it the "ultimate snack".

Buttigieg asks Al Sharpton if it's okay to eat chicken using his hands.

The Hill: Buttigieg seeks black vote by lunching with Al Sharpton.

[Buttigieg] ordered fried chicken, collard greens, and macaroni and cheese, at one point asking Sharpton if it was correct to eat the fried chicken with his hands.

No details are available why Buttigieg didn't discuss his 2012 firing of South Bend's first black Police Chief Darryl Boykins, which is an issue the media seems uninterested in pursuing. Chicago Crusader:

After his termination, [Police Chief Darryl] Boykins filed several lawsuits, claiming he was wrongfully terminated. He also sued the city for racial discrimination and won in 2013. That same year, the white officers sued  the city for invasion of privacy and defamation. They won $500,000.
[.]
South Bend’s Black community is still struggling to heal from the wounds left by Boykins’ termination. Buttigieg’s silence over the incident and refusal to release the audio tapes is making the recovery even more difficult. Few Blacks in the city have attended Buttigieg’s presidential rallies since he launched his campaign earlier this year. Most are lily white liberals who are excited to see Buttigieg make his historic run for the White House.

Fired Police Chief Darryl Boykins

Schumer and Pelosi: Political Reruns from 8,9 and 10 Years ago.

Some days, it's like I'm still living between the years 2005 - 2009 regarding Cluck Schumer.

And, some days, it's  like I'm still living between the years 2006 - 2009 regarding Nanny Pelosi.

Schumer and Pelosi are nothing but political Reruns. To think that I'm still writing about them, and their  obstructionism, nine and ten years later is a Giant Blot on the American Body Politic.

  These two are like the old joke about
  herpes.

  What's the difference between Chuck
  Schumer and Nancy Pelosi from that of
  herpes?"

  Answer: Both are very painful and never
  go away on a permanent basis.

Cluck is back enumerating his talking points as he always has; eyeglasses resting at the end of his Super-Sized Large Beak: The Bezos Daily:

"First, if accurate, a disclosure of this type could threaten the United States’ relationships with allies who provide us with vital intelligence and could result in the loss of this specific intelligence source. . . . Second, if accurate, such a disclosure could damage our interests in the Middle East. We do not collaborate with Russia in Syria or elsewhere in the Middle East for the simple fact that we have diverging interests. . . . And third, if the report is true....["]

Well, we know Cluck is capable of listing THREE, count 'em THREE reasons, over the overblown and hyperbolic "crisis" of President Donald Trump in disclosing alleged highly classified information in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the White House last week.

This feigned outrage from The Left over classified or de-classified information reminds me of, what is probably, a little known film, "Wrong Is Right." 

It's really a good film that flew under the radar in terms of being a financial success or one of film critic's better reviews. It was also way ahead of its time. If you can find it, watch it and see how it parallels the politics and media of today.

In it, Sean Connery plays a globe-trotting television reporter. In the film, Connery's character meets with the President of the United States (played wonderfully as both "low-key" and "intense" by George Grizzard), and has a long conversation after which, the president says to Connery, "By the way, the conversation we just had is classified."

Connery's character asks, "Who classified it and when?"

The President: "I did, and just now."

And that is exactly the kind of discretion and prerogative any president has in de-classifying classified information.

And now, returning to Pelosi, parroting the same false narrative  as the other goo-covered members of her party. Washington Examiner:

[Pelosi] wondered aloud "what the Russians have on him" that would make Trump do this.

It's Pelosi who has some explaining to do. Daily Mail:

[Pelosi was asked] about whether she had ever met the current Russian ambassador, Sergey Kisliak.
[.]
'Not with this Russian ambassador, no,' was Pelosi's response.
[.]
Within hours, a photo surfaced showing Pelosi seated around the same table as the peripatetic ambassador.
[.]
Pelosi's spokesman, Drew Hammill, [in defending Pelosi said], 'Of course [what] she meant,' [was] she  never had a private one-on-one with him.'

Who buys this BS other than Liberals and The Media who happily carry the water bucket for The Insane Liberal Clown Posse.

"Not with the Russian ambassador, no."  "NO."  But then it turns to "YES" when shown proof she did meet with him, she's standing almost next to him, the two of them shaking hands.

"What she meant was..." that she didn't meet with him in "private. One on
one."

"What I meant was..." is always the fallback phrase from Liberals when caught in a lie.

And, totally off topic: You have noticed Cluck Schumer's frontal hair "plugs", haven't you? It looks like he went to the same failed hair reconstruction surgeon as his fellow Lib Joe "The Plagiarist" Biden.

But let us return to splitting hairs in not meeting someone that you did, indeed, meet: 

"Dave, have you ever met Two Dogs?"

"No. Never."

"Dave, we have a photograph of you and Two Dogs seated at the bar at TGIF."

"Oh, that...I thought you meant did I ever meet with him one on one."

This double-speak hair splitting with words from Liberals is just another variation of the definition of "what is is":

The sanctimony displayed on The World Stage by the ilks of Schumer, Pelosi and all the other members of The Insane Clown Posse are a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

All of America's Liberals contract a sudden case of hardcore amnesia on the GOLDMAN SACHS SPEECH from Hillary Clinton on the subject of her admiration for Russia and Vladimir Putin:

“I would love it if we could continue to build a more positive relationship with Russia,” Clinton said during a speech to Goldman Sachs on June 4, 2013. In the same speech, Clinton said “obviously we would very much like to have a positive relationship with Russia and we would like to see Putin be less defensive toward a relationship with the United States so that we could work together on some issues."

"...so that we could work together on some issues."

Doesn't that sound damn close to Trump's, "Wouldn't it be nice if we could get along with Russia"?

Of course it does. The Drama Queen Act from Liberals is old, very very old. It doesn't work anymore, yet, they keep doing the same thing year after year.

It's like I'm caught in Liberal Reruns from 8,9,10 and more years ago. Hold on...I am caught in Liberal Reruns. We all are.
- - -
Grammar corrections  5/17/2017

Sad McCain and Cluck Schumer are both "troubled..."

Both Sad John McCain and Cluck Schumer say they are "troubled."

This reminds me of the numerous times that both Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman would say the same thing. They were "troubled...." about something or other regarding the George W. Bush Admin.

So, Sad McCain is "troubled" by the Trump Tower bugging and Russia: 

“There’s a lot of things about our relations with Russia that trouble me a lot,” Mr. McCain said.

Why does this alleged Republican go out of his way, consistently, against his own party or, rather, why does he feel the need to join the chorus of the Liberal Insane Clown Posse?

Because he is bitter. His bitter bid (no pub intended) for the White House failed. Well, when you run a campaign as poorly as his, as tedious and mundane as his - you lose the race.

Bob Doles' bid for the White House was an exciting, 4th of July fireworks spectacular compared to that of McCain.

And as a side note, I always found it fascinating that in terms of running for the office of president, up until President Donald Trump, the Democrats owned the internet as a political machine.

Bill Clinton and his people knew the potential of the internet in terms of how to use it as a political tool. As a presidential candidate, Howard Dean and his team took use of the internet as a political tool and moved the goal post even higher; understanding the grassroots connection. Dean and his team also understood and capitalized on the fund-raising factors that the internet brought to them. Barack Obama and his his team brought the use of the internet by the Democrats to its Zenith.

The Democrats OWNED the internet and the Republicans - for more than twenty years - are still scratching their behinds without the slightest idea on how to make the internet work for their campaigns and their message.

But then came Donald Trump, and his Twitter account and he simply Pwned what the Democrats developed using the internet as their very proficient political tool. Trump ripped the 'political ownership' out of them, destroying their dominance and control of the internet as their apparatus.

And he's the only one. Not one single Republican or Libertarian, really, have managed to effectively use the internet as part of their political message and election attempts as have the Democrats. It's like the Republican's can't figure out how the internet can help them. Well, they don't have to figure it out. Copy how Bill Clinton used it. Copy Howard Dean. Copy Barack Obama. Copy Donald Trump.

How the Republicans can't manage to figure out how to use the internet is one big enigma to me. But I digress...

Back to CLUCK SCHUMER.

The very Liberal and partisan Cluck Schumer finds that he too, is "troubled.": 

[Schumer said]  he is concerned by Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s request for resignations from 46 U.S. attorneys appointed by former President Barack Obama.

[.]

“I’m troubled to learn of requests for resignations from the remaining U.S. attorneys, particularly that of Preet Bharara, after the President initiated a call to me in November and assured me he wanted Mr. Bharara to continue...

Awwwwww, poor Cluckie, that's just a shame. The U.S. Attorneys serve at the behest of the President and requesting their resignation, or terminating them if they refuse to resign, IS THE PREROGATIVE OF ANY PRESIDENT AND HIS U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

So Sad John and Cluckie, be "troubled." And Cluckie, be "concerned", also.

These two Senators are shining examples from BOTH parties, and are the answer to the question of:  Why doesn't anything GET DONE in Washington."