Donate

OK here is a story about Trump's pecker protector, which was held by his friend David Pecker. Now that Trump's Pecker is cooperating with the authorities (his Pecker flipped) journalists are learning about the relationship between Trump and his Pecker, and turns out Trump's Pecker kept Trump's secrets in a pecker protector, and YOU DON'T HAVE THE KEY. Also, Trump's pecker protector was removed and/or destroyed, sometime after the election and before the inauguration.


We told you yesterday all about the conspiracy hatched between David Pecker (head of AMI, which publishes the National Enquirer) and Michael Cohen and Donald Trump and "one or more" people on the Trump campaign, to bury Trump's pecker secrets, so they wouldn't make Joy Beth from the Rust Belt change her mind and vote for Crooked Lying Hillary at the last minute. Pecker is telling the feds all about it, and we assume Dylan Howard, the chief content officer for AMI, is doing the same, as he has also been granted pecker protection immunity. (Howard was the one who, just days before the election, frantically sexted Michael Cohen that they better get Stormy Daniels paid off, because otherwise it might end up looking bad for "everyone," by which he meant Trump's pecker.)

The AP has new reporting that says Pecker, whose company is in financial DEEP SHIT (sorry about the technical term we just used there), literally had a safe where he kept Trump's deepest darkest pecker secrets, but that it mysteriously got removed by Dylan Howard just after the election, because SHRUGGIE DUNNO WHY.

The National Enquirer kept a safe containing documents on hush-money payments and other damaging stories it killed as part of its cozy relationship with Donald Trump leading up to 2016 presidential election, people familiar with the arrangement told The Associated Press. [...]

The Trump records were stored alongside similar documents pertaining to other celebrities' catch-and-kill deals, in which exclusive rights to people's stories were bought with no intention of publishing to keep them out of the news. By keeping celebrities' embarrassing secrets, the company was able to ingratiate itself with them and ask for favors in return.

Oh that is nice! They would catch and kill the secrets of the rich and powerful, and because of that they had power over them! Jesus Christ ... Russia has kompromat on Trump's pecker ("allegedly" LOL), the National Enquirer had kompromat on Trump's pecker ... BRB gonna check under our couch cushions to see if we also have kompromat on Trump's pecker, because it is apparently this season's hottest item!

But then, "[f]earful that the documents might be used against AMI," as AP puts it, Pecker and Howard took all the Trump pecker stuff out of the official pecker protector (safe, we mean safe), and now Trump's pecker is completely unprotected by the pecker protector. AP reports that nobody knows whether they burned Trump's pecker secrets, or whether they just put them somewhere a little more protector-y, like maybe in the garage.

This is wild, because remember that Cohen tape? The one where Michael Cohen and Donald Trump were discussing buying back the rights to some of Trump's pecker secrets, just in case Trump's Pecker (David Pecker, that is) got thrown under Duncan Hunter's wife's bus? Well turns out there's a bunch of other Trump pecker secrets out there, just dangling around! (Unless they burned Trump's other pecker secrets.)

The point of this story is that the National Enquirer hasn't really been in the "journalism" business (THE FUCK YOU SAY!) but more in the in the catch and kill/leverage business. And Dylan Howard AKA Pecker's Little Helper, perhaps realizing they were all involved in a criminal enterprise, went ahead and moved Trump's pecker protector after the election, and maybe even ran over it with his car, OW OW OW OW OW STOP RUNNING OVER TRUMP'S PECKER PROTECTOR WITH YOUR 2004 NISSAN SENTRA, DYLAN.

In summary and in conclusion, PECKER PECKER PECKER PECKER PECKER PECKER PECKER.

Also, you should watch the "A" block from last night's Rachel Maddow, where she talks about the Enquirer's massive collusion with the Trump campaign, as they constantly published stories about how Hillary had wasted away to 95 pounds and also ballooned up to 475 pounds, and amid this rapid weight loss/gain she still had time to murder everybody and do child sex rings. Meanwhile, the Enquirer stories about Trump were about how he has the hottest pecker and just can't stop himself from saving the world. Oh, and one time AMI published a really weird glossy book about the NSFW sexxxiness of Saudi prince Mohammad bin Salman AKA "MBS" AKA "Jared's sleepover buddy," bet that one just flew off the shelves in Walmart, you betcha.

Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT NOW, DO IT RIGHT NOW!

Help Wonkette LIVE FOREVER! Seriously, if you can, please hit the tip jar below and make a donation of MONEY. Or click this link to become a monthly subscriber!

[AP]

Evan Hurst

Evan Hurst is the senior editor of Wonkette, which means he is the boss of you, unless you are Rebecca, who is boss of him. His dog Lula is judging you right now.

Follow him on Twitter RIGHT HERE.

$
Donate with CC

OOH BOY HOWDY, The Federalist is on fire this week! Just this morning we told you about the hilarious Federalist column where one neo-Nazi's mom and dad are Democrats, ipso facto QED NEO-NAZIS ARE THE REAL LIBERALS, FUCKERS! Is America's dumbest woman whose name doesn't rhyme with Cara Snailin' over there being a total fuckin' Mollie Hemingway right now? Sadly, she blocked us on Twitter, so how could we possibly know? The answer is WE DON'T CARE.

But now we have a gem of the Federalist genre, an article written by a whiny-ass gay quisling conservative, who would like to chew on his blankie and whine about how much harder it is out there for a conservative than it is for a gay person. This is a subject we happen to have some knowledge about, because we are super gay! And we know a lot about conservatives, both firsthand -- being subjected to them every single one of our almost four decades of life -- and also from covering extremist right-wing Christians for a very long time. Particularly the kind that tell young, impressionable, vulnerable gay kids that they need to pray away the gay if they want Jesus to exercise some self control and refrain from sending them to a fiery hell for all eternity.

We clicked on the article with high hopes. See if you can spot why:

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
pic via Glamour Shots, we mean this dude's old website

The House Education and Workforce Committee was all set to have a hearing today all about the horrors that a higher minimum wage would wreak on the economy. Horrors like rich people being slightly less rich. Horrors like business owners claiming they will have to fire people and charge $15 for a McChicken if forced to pay workers a living wage, which they won't actually do because no one will buy a $15 McChicken and they would go out of business if they tried that, and they already don't hire more people than the bare minimum they can get away with. Horrors like poor people not being "motivated" to work harder and get better jobs that do not pay them an amount no human being could possibly live on.

Alas, as Politico reports, it was not to be, as committee members discovered their big witness for the hearing, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia (pictured above in a Glamour Shot from his archived website), was kind of a wacko.

Sabia, as it turns out, once had a blog called "No Shades Of Gray," in which he wrote many columns of an extremely homophobic and sexist persuasion. In one of these columns, in 2002, Sabia was very mad about one man's lawsuit against several fast food giants for contributing to his health and obesity problems by failing to disclose the nutritional information of the food they sold. In retrospect, I think most people are now on board with these chains being required to post calorie counts and other nutritional information, but in 2002, Sabia was convinced that requiring them to do this would be an assault on freedom for all Americans everywhere. His response to this was to try and attempt a Jonathan Swift posture and suggest taxing gay sex, which he claimed leads to "disastrous health consequences."

Because sure, that's the same thing, basically.


In gay sex, we have an activity that is clearly leading to disastrous health consequences. What rational person would engage in this sort of activity? There is only one solution - let's tax it.

"Come on, Sabia," you say, "how are you going to enforce these taxes? Are you going to send government officials to peep into everyone's bedroom?"

Eventually. But first we have to mount the assault on Big Gay (no, I am not talking about Rosie O'Donnell). We can tax gay nightclubs, websites, personal ads, sexual paraphernalia, and so forth. Talk about a sin tax!!! We can cripple gay-related industries and get them right where we want them. All gay clubs will have to feature huge, flashing warning signs like "CAUTION: Entering this nightclub may increase your chance of contracting STDs and dying."

Big Gay clearly lures people into trying their "product" without discussing the risks to mind, body, and soul. The average Joe on the street does not understand all of the possible bad outcomes. I can almost hear him now:

"They said '100 percent hotties.' I thought that meant it was fun. I thought gay sex was OK…Now I have all these diseases. Big Gay has wrecked my life."

In the immoral words of Warren G, "Regulators!! Mount up!"

EXTREME SHUDDER.

In another 2002 article, classily titled "College Girls: Unpaid Whores," Sabia laments that feminists have led college girls to stop trying to be like the Holy Virgin Mary and instead to aspire to be more like that hussy Ally McBeal.

No, really.

As women have strayed from the church, they have replaced what is holy with what is temporally pleasing. For Catholics, the model woman is Mary, the virgin Mother of God. She is beloved by the faithful for her unflappable devotion to and trust in God, her nurturing of the Son of Man, and her deep love for all humanity.

Today's college girl looks to Ally McBeal, the trollops of Sex in the City, and the floozies on Friends to set their moral compasses.

The sad truth is that college girls are so desperate to find love that they are willing to degrade themselves to get it. But true love can only be understood in the context of the Word of God. Any other notion of "love" is secular and, by definition, limited and finite.

Not only that, but instead of going to college to find a husband, they have boyfriends. Boyfriends they have S-E-X with. And sometimes, not even that. Sometimes they have sex with people just because they want to have sex with people, and not even in exchange for Valentine's Day cards or money!


Additionally, other sex-based relationships have become commonplace. In recent years, a new and disturbing arrangement known as "friends with benefits" has emerged. In this arrangement, men are not even forced to perform the normal duties of boyfriends, i.e. flowers, Valentine's Day cards, rides to the abortion clinic, etc. Instead, girls consider these guys "just friends" whom they happen to screw every now and again. No strings, no attachments, no dinners. Just sex when they feel like it.

This type of arrangement is the next logical step in the direction that young women have drifted in the last few decades. These women have become unpaid whores. At least prostitutes made a buck off of their trade. These women just give it away.

How cute! He was like the ur-incel, basically.

Anyway, following the discovery of the posts, the House Education and Workforce Committee's GOP communications director Kelley McNabb told Politico that "members were uncomfortable moving forward on the hearing." A more optimistic person might think this was a step forward, that maybe those committee members actually thought it was bad to suggest that being gay means being a disease-ridden monster or that college girls are whores, but it's probably more to avoid embarrassment than anything else. Guess they'll have to start from scratch and find a crappy economist who will tell them what they want to hear about the minimum wage but who doesn't have an embarrassing Geocities blog in their past. Good luck with that!

[Politico]

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

$
Donate with CC
Donate

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Newsletter

©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc