Exhibit 0049

Liberals Opposed to Expanding Costly Afghan War Apparently Love Terrorists

MOAB Device and President Trump

A. THE SOURCE

1. Don’t waste your time here.

B. THE TEASE

2. “People on the left” = pollster / political consultant Frank Luntz, BuzzFeed deputy news director Tom Namako, BuzzFeed foreign and national security editor Miriam Elder, actress Grace Parra, and Washington Post staff writer Tom McKay — clearly a “who’s who” of the liberal elite.

3. “Unmasked” is conservatives’ new favorite word, because it’s the term used to describe the routine and entirely proper identification of American citizens incidentally caught up in legally authorized surveillance that President Trump’s defenders believe somehow excuses his election campaign’s treasonous collusion with Russia.

4. So, just to be clear, The Federalist Papers is not speaking figuratively here — FP asserts that Luntz, Namako, Elder, Parra, and McKay literally support terrorists. And yet, incredibly, they all still have stable, well-paying jobs. The U.S. economy must be in better shape than we thought.

5. Unlike that wuss Obama, President Trump had the guts to pick up the phone when someone from the Pentagon called to report that U.S. military commanders decided without previously consulting him to drop the “Mother Of All Bombs” on a bunch of caves in Afghanistan.

6. “Bombing the mess out of ISIS” = killing three dozen ISIS fighters. Guess it wasn’t that big a mess.

7. Yes, it’s important to share this with as many people as possibly. English is hard; blowing things up is easy.

8. We’ve always wondered what liberals are REALLY like. When we close our eyes and try to visualize them, all we see is Amy Schumer cutting her toenails.

C. THE IMAGE

9. MOAB device, painted orange in honor of our new president.

10. Not Afghanistan.

11. President Trump, looking like he’s been punched in the face by Amy Schumer.

D. THE HEADLINE

12. It’s about time liberals came clean about their pro-terrorist sympathies. Now maybe they can admit that climate change is a hoax and that poor people don’t deserve health care.

13. Putting aside the fact that not even the most die-hard Trump supporters think ISIS was “devastated” by the MOAB media stunt, let’s examine how “the libs” ostensibly expressed their love for terrorists in response (via Twitter, naturally). As cited in the linked article, Frank Luntz stated, “I never expected to see so much opposition to bombing ISIS.” (Notably, Luntz did not say that he was opposed to bombing ISIS). Tom Namako asked, “Why did we use this massive bomb? Was anyone injured who was not an intended target? Why does this information need to be leaked out?” Namako’s BuzzFeed colleague, Miriam Elder, churlishly replied, “Why are you asking these pesky questions instead of Worshiping The Bomb, Tom?” Grace Parra opined that the prior U.S. strike on Syria was “a gateway drug for Trump.” And Tom McKay exclaimed (presumably with tongue in cheek), “We are all going to die.” No offense to ISIS, but it really needs to work on its fan club.

E. THE NUDGE

14. Calling something “another successful job” implies that there has been a prior successful job. We’ll wait for Sean Spicer to check on that and get back to us. In the meantime, we’ll simply observe that President Trump’s post-approved cave obliteration was such a success in destroying ISIS that the Pentagon now believes it might need to send several thousand more troops to Afghanistan to destroy ISIS. The libs sure aren’t going to like that — but what do you expect?

NITWITIA SCORES

Pandering 7/10 • Idiocy 7/10
Banality 6/10 • Vileness 8/10

Exhibit 0024

Health Insurer’s Callousness to Terminal Patient Somehow Because of Obamacare

Terminal Patient Stephanie Packer

A. THE SOURCE

1. Don’t waste your time here.

B. THE TEASE

2. Actually, most liberals were outraged and disgusted when conservatives, led by noted intellectual Sarah Palin, peddled this patently ridiculous notion in an attempt to galvanize opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

3. No, they’re not.

4. What happened is that, following the profit-driven capitalist model favored by Republican leaders, this woman’s unnamed private health insurance company dickishly refused to pay for an alternative chemotherapy treatment recommended by her doctors, but expressed willingness to cover medication for physician-assisted suicide, which recently became legal in her home state of California.

C. THE IMAGE

5. Stephanie Packer, the terminally ill human being suffering from a cancer-related disease called scleroderma who The Federalist Papers is shamelessly exploiting for clicks. She told her story in a heart-wrenching 15-minute video distributed by The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, an organization which, like Packer, is opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia. There’s no indication that Packer authorized FP to appropriate her video for its article, or that FP even bothered to contact her.

D. THE HEADLINE

6. This statement is 100% accurate, except for “Obamacare” and “death panels,” neither of which are mentioned in Ms. Packer’s video or in The Federalist Papers’ own article. There is no assertion that Packer obtained her insurance through Obamacare or that any ACA regulation is involved. Simply put, Obamacare has nothing whatsoever to do with Packer’s tragic story.

7. The Federalist Papers has given up on coy enticements and is now just ordering its readers to visit its website.

E. THE NUDGE

8. This is complete bullshit, folks. While some on the Left support allowing terminally ill patients to end their own lives, liberals have fought for decades against the very kind of behavior engaged in by the insurance company here, only to be thwarted by “free market” conservatives who preach total governmental non-interference in health insurers’ life-or-death decisions. Tellingly, in its article, The Federalist Papers doesn’t criticize the insurer nearly as much as it does the State of California for legalizing physician-assisted suicide, which it claims “creates a huge incentive for insurance companies to deny expensive drugs to terminally ill patients” because “the cheapest option is to kill them.” But the incentive of higher profits exists whether assisted suicide is legal or not. If conservatives really gave a damn about people like Ms. Packer, they’d endorse increased government regulation of insurance companies to prevent them from denying coverage for critical medical treatment. That sounds a lot like Obamacare.

NITWITIA SCORES

Pandering 8/10 • Idiocy 4/10
Banality 1/10 • Vileness 9/10

Exhibit 0017

Clinton’s Failure to Wear Flag Pin Reveals Deep Hatred of America

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton at First Presidential Debate

A. THE SOURCE

1. Don’t waste your time here.

B. THE TEASE

2. Let’s eliminate the suspense right away. The “huge” thing about the first presidential debate that The Federalist Papers wants to bring to its joyless readers’ attention is the fact that Donald Trump was wearing an American flag pin, and Hillary Clinton wasn’t, which FP must think the television networks blurred out to avoid offending Muslims.

3. Yes, were it not for their choice of fashion accessories, there’d be virtually no way of telling Trump and Clinton apart.

4. We can be sure that Trump loves America because one of his trembling minions took three seconds to attach a 99-cent pin that was probably made in Taiwan to the sweat-stained lapel of his Indonesian tailored suit, and we can be equally sure that Clinton hates America because she doesn’t believe that displaying a shiny nationalistic talisman is necessary to prove her patriotism.

C. THE IMAGE

5. Donald Trump explaining his comprehensive, multi-point policy on determining when a beauty pageant winner has gotten too fat.

6. Trump’s American flag pin. (Not pictured: American tax returns).

7. Trump’s defective podium microphone, which made everything he said sound like the rantings of an insecure, misogynistic bully.

8. Trump’s well-used water glass, custom-sized to fit comfortably in the grip of his chubby, elfin fingers.

9. Hillary Clinton, wondering how she could have been fighting ISIS for her entire adult life when ISIS has only been in existence for the last seven years.

10. Clinton’s pinless attire, which The Federalist Papers describes in the article as “a bright-red pantsuit that reminds people of the Chinese Communist Flag.” “People,” of course, being members of FP’s own, cretinous staff.

11. Clinton’s cough suppression machine, cleverly disguised as a wireless mic.

12. Clinton’s secret hand signal to Lester Holt, directing him to keep the softball questions coming.

13. Clinton’s Trump decoder ring (“opposed” = supported; “2004” = 2002; and “Sean Hannity” = Howard Stern).

14. Clinton’s teleprompter, urgently flashing the message, “Deploy Machado.”

D. THE HEADLINE

15. Well, not everyone. According to the article, Clinton’s shocking flag pin deficit was noticed by the esteemed “Bikers 4 Trump,” who astutely tweeted, “Socialist Hillary Clinton seems to be missing a flag pin on debate night.” It’s amazing how Clinton can be in bed with Wall Street and an unabashed socialist at the same time.

E. THE NUDGE

16. Here, actually, one of those obnoxious arrows would’ve helped. Regardless, in its article, The Federalist Papers becomes unexpectedly equivocal on the significance of Pingate, ruminating, “What does it mean? Perhaps nothing — perhaps it’s telling.” And perhaps FP is a shameless clickbait factory that has no idea what America is really all about.

NITWITIA SCORES

Pandering 6/10 • Idiocy 5/10
Banality 10/10 • Vileness 3/10