Friday, February 24, 2017

Three shades of grey (or how Ruby made three)

I am taking a break from political commentary today to do what I have occasionally and previously done on this blog. That's right, time for a rattie update.
During my last entry on the subject, I told you about how Gwen, our Queen, had just lost her cagemates Crunchie and Twix to old age/illness. We picked up two girls, an eight-month-old named Marshmallow and an eleven-month-old called Elsa. Gwen and Marshie pretty much bonded straightaway, but Elsa was a challenger.
A week later, after Elsa had flipped the elderly Gwen on her back and slashed away at her belly, she had to live on her own. Marshie stayed in the cage with Gwen for a while, but the trauma had proven too great for our old Queen and she was uncomfortable with any rat being kept with her. Marshie went back into the smaller cage with Elsa. However, we let Marshie free range with Gwen and then Elsa would come out for her time once Gwen went back in her cage.

Gwen had to be put down on Christmas Eve day 2015. She was a real character, hard to get to know at first, although that was in no way her fault. Queen Gwen grew comfortable with her surroundings and her way of life and she was content by the time she had to be euthanized. She had loved her live-in friends, Crunchie and Twix, two of the gentlest rats anyone could have asked to have as company, and had some good rat interaction with Marshmallow.
Formerly a bit of a biter, Gwen would lick either of us copiously when she was propped up on her haunches to groom herself during her last few months of life when tumors made it too difficult to do this on her own. Gwen was a rehabilitation project, but she was entirely worth it. When she shed her earthly body for the spirit world of Rainbow Bridge, she was 2 years, 9 months old.

Elsa then inherited the mantle of Queen and Marshmallow was our little Princess. Marshie loved collecting paper at first, then it became Elsa's job. Elsa would probably stuff as many as fifty or sixty old catalog pages into their little fabric hutch every night whilst having their free range time. Both girls were spunky, mischievous, a bit easily spooked but outward and trusting.

Like Gwen, they were not very familiar with humans before they came to us. Their previous owners basically just fed them and that was all. There had been very little to no substantial interaction.
We had a wonderful Christmas with them, their third Christmas overall and their second with us. We rang the new year in with them. Then things went south. On the 23rd of January, Marshmallow's tumors had rendered her tender to the touch and not very interested in food. It was time.
Once Elsa understood what was going to happen, she let herself succumb to her own cancer. Elsa had put up a very brave front for her smaller, younger step-sister, being the one to look out for her, on the surface still physically capable. But with Marshie gone, and Elsa knowing that, she allowed the energy to drain out of herself. Elsa had to be put down later that same day. Marshmallow was 2 years, 4 months and Elsa was 2 years, 7 months old. 

Squirrel immediately contacted a local National Fancy Rat Society breeder from which to get our next rat pack. Two days after saying goodbye to Elsa and Marshmallow, we said hello to two adorable kittens, Skittle and Willow. Their personalities continue to grow the more they get used to us and their surroundings, but they're practically there already. Skittle is an Essex rat, which is basically a form of Berkshire, with silver hairs among her charcoal black fur. Willow is a chocolate rat, but can appear grey.

Willow and Skittle

We were originally due to get a rat called Ruby, but the breeder said that she had mated with a male and could be pregnant. We continued training Skittle and Willow and waited for news on Ruby. Finally, news came and it was good. Ruby wasn't pregnant! Squirrel collected her and we had our complete rat colony. Ruby is a Marten rat, a dark grey color pattern with red eyes.


The two kittens were happy to see Ruby. It didn't take much for them to get re-acquainted with each other.
Skittle, the youngest, appears to be the most outgoing and is often the easiest to pick up and snuggle. Willow is jumpier and more commotion-prone, but is also very gentle and not that far behind Skittle in her willingness to approach us. Ruby is still a work in progress, very wild in many respects, but also very curious about us, and it is that very curiosity that will see her calm down a bit the longer she is exposed to us, especially during her free range time.
At the end of the day, all very young rats are going to be all over the place and very excited/excitable. But this is precisely when their personalities start to develop and shine through as well.

Ruby and Willow

Ruby, Willow and Skittle

As she is the oldest and seemingly the alpha, Ruby has been given the title of Queen. Skittle and Willow are Princesses. And of course, with rats of any age, they love to sleep!

Skittle, Willow and Ruby

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Never-Trump "heroes" defy democracy

Let me try to get my head around this one. It's not okay to talk with the Russian ambassador, among other heads of state, when you're chosen to be the incoming President's national security adviser. It is a violation of this arcane statute from 1799 known as the "Logan Act," which is so important, you see, that nobody has ever been found guilty of contravening it.
But it is alright to have used illegal surveillance of a US citizen's calls in order to know who the soon-to-be national security adviser was talking to and what he was saying. I see. So this "Logan Act" must be the letter of the law with regard to retired Lieutenant Michael Flynn. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution can screw off.
And, furthermore, there are figureheads defending this gross suspension of civil liberties. I speak of former pres ... A-HAH-HAH-HAH!—sorry, I couldn't control that. Former presidential cand ... *snort*. OK, I'll pull myself together. Former presidential candidate and spokesmouth for the Purist Holier-than-Thous, Evan McMullen Egg McMuffin.
McMuffin took to the airwaves, granted to him by liberals who just adore #NeverTrump "conservatives," oh yes, they do! On CNN and Jack Dorsey's Twitter, McMuffin opined that President Donald Trump "presents a threat to the country". Not Hillary Clinton, right? With her illegal server open to hackers of all stripes and motives, selling of state secrets and American blood on her hands? Nah. Pshaw! The grave danger to the US is Donald Trump because he's dismantling Honolulu Barry's legacy—including, golly gee, his wonderful deal to allow Iran, within a mere ten years, to develop nuclear weapons, accomplished through $150 billion of your money. He's upsetting the George Soros New World Order. Like, omigod!
Speaking about the rogue "intelligence" agencies aligned against Mr. Trump, McMuffin told Kelly Megyn the Second, also known as Brooke Baldwin, "I'll tell you what their concerns are. Their concerns are that Donald Trump presents a threat to the country because ... what they see as his relationship with Vladimir Putin and the relationship of his team to other Russian intelligence officers."
Oh yeah, that monster that wants to eat up the entire planet. Vladimir Putin. Uh-huh. A man who isn't actively reviving slavery nor chopping heads off Christian, Yazidi and moderate Muslim men and raping their women and infiltrating swarms of invaders into Europe and America to commit terror. A man who even ended the seal cull in Russia—something we won't see hippy-dippy Justin Trudeau's Canada do anytime soon. I'm so glad our "intelligence" services are so actively pursuing nationalist, Christian Russia. That's brilliant. Your government hard at work, folks. Too bad the Russkies aren't ragheads. They'd be left well the bloody hell alone then, wouldn't they?
Listen, McMuffin, shine that chrome dome of yours and then stick a pacifier in your mouth to complete the look. You're absolutely pathetic.
Oh, but Nightdragon, he's a former CIA operative, I hear you protest. Exactly. I'd rather have a drug dealer in office. We'd have more honesty. And besides, we could always encourage him to undertake a diplomatic visit to the Philippines whereupon Rodrigo Duterte would have him executed. 
Then there's the other sourpuss and loser, William Kristol. You know, the one who publishes The Meekly Standard? Wait, it's the Weakly Standard, that's it. On Twitter, Kristol wrote, "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."
Gotta hand it to user Ben Domenech who responded, "I prefer the elected to the unelected." What, now? Round that man up and put him away under the uh, ... under the uh, ... under the "Logan Act"! Yeah, that's it!
Golly, aren't men like McMuffin and Kristol such staunch, trustworthy defenders of the American way? That's why they'd give the office over to the shriveled-up old harridan in a split second if only they could. After all, they voted for her. Oh wait, I forgot. Voting for Hillary meant actually putting an "X" next to her name, simple electoral algebra be damned. Silly me.
How about this: They have dedicated themselves to the cause of defying a totally legitimate presidency. I thought that was the job of Democrats. That's normally how it goes. But, because the Republicans are led by spineless wonders and total corporate whores like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, it's no wonder oh-so-heroic independents like McMuffin and Kristol can effortlessly attach themselves to the cause.
Erick Erickson has moved on. Glenn Beck has at least somewhat moved on. Kristol, however, has a hate-on for Trump that is horrifyingly priapistic. 
Let me spell it out for you phenomenally ignorant people who think men like this and those in the deep state are courage personified. The intelligence services are there to protect the President. They work for him and assist any administration who's in power. Their existence is not to be a check on the executive. That is the job of Congress. Show me where in the Constitution that powers are granted to surveillance forces to watch over the executive branch. C'mon, brainiacs, where is it?
Barry Obama greatly expanded surveillance powers on his way out the White House door. Known as Executive Order—and with B.O., what else could it possibly have been?—12333, it almost completely disregards any right to privacy in allowing the National Security Agency to share information, no matter how dubious and no matter how raw, with the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, the DHS and the CIA. You know, our seventeen five members of the intelligence community.
General Mike Flynn was a private citizen at the time. But he was aware of his duties and was having preliminary talks with several heads of state beforehand. It's called preparation, something a general would particularly know more than a thing or two about. I know Gen. Flynn is no deep state boy-hero like McMuffin, but hey, he did the best he could.
Obama could be taped on a hot mic telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more flexibility in bending over for him and his country once he won the 2012 election, knowing damn well that voter fraud would indeed see him reëlected. Oh wait, there's no such thing as voter fraud—another Great Lie pumped out by the Progressive-Purist Axis of Evisceration. Anyway, this upset absolutely no-one in this valuable "intelligence community" of ours. General Flynn tells Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak that he has no further information on the sanctions against his country and it's the end of the world.
Listen to me, you Cruz-bot purists, Republican Establishment loyalists and those who wish to carry the Reagan mantle even though you're making Dutch turn in his grave. What does it say about men who lose an election, either directly or indirectly, and who carry on as if they won, who continue to push an agenda and a status quo that obviously got resoundingly rejected, men who don't do the humble thing and go away, recognizing that the people have spoken, but who allege that, because they lost, our democracy was fiddled with by a foreign power? And you're more frightened by Donald Trump, even though you said absolutely nothing about Barry or Hillary?
I've said it before and I'll gladly say it again: If this is conservatism, count me out. I'm finding it impossible to differentiate from progressivism/Marxism at this stage. I'm more than happy to be a populist-nationalist.
I've left the best for last: John McCain McManiac. Talk about bitter, sore losers— whoa! Remember during the campaign last summer when the punditry was abuzz with news about how Trump had sunk his bid for the presidency because he dared to opine that McCain was not a war hero? Well, Mr. Trump was wrong, we all know that. But here's the thing. I've grown tired of hearing it. Mark Levin was right when he recently said that McCain is not the only war hero out there. There are plenty of others. But the senior senator from Arizona hogs the limelight with respect to that.
I no longer care about McManiac's war hero status. Apparently, he learned nothing, because he's a warmonger. This man has never met a military conflict he didn't like, approve of and want to keep going for decades. The war machine, the government-military complex, has been good to this guy and he's clearly missing the Cold War. So, let's ramp up hostilities with Russia, knock Assad out of power in Syria so that we can have yet another unstable, jihadist-governed country in the Middle East, and continue pinprick airstrikes on ISIS. That is the McManiac (and Lindsey Grahamnesty and Little Marco Rubio) policy. Ain't it great? Nice contracts if you can get them.
McManiac is a disgrace. He's been in office for way too long. What is it with us that we allow octogenarians to serve in Congress? John Lewis. Dianne Feinstein. John Conyers. Should we not have an upper age limit? You know, if you have reached the stage where you have to go back into diapers, you should probably not be serving any longer. Who wants to campaign when they're 80? I don't get it. Must be the riches, eh? They went went to Washington to do good and stay—and stay, and stay—to do well.
This bad-tempered coot, McCain, demanded candidate Trump's loyalty. So Trump gave it in good faith and therefore denying it to the genuine conservative in the 2016 Arizona primary, one Kelli Ward. And now McCain is on the war-path, Trump's endorsement having earned the President no loyalty. Trump called out the "Gold Star" Khan family. McCain bitched. Trump criticised Judge Curiel. McCain kvetched. McCain invoked "demeaning comments about women" on Trump's part upon withdrawing his endorsement in October. Take Trump's recent humiliation of the media, which was long overdue and entirely merited because the mainstream media are biased, are liberal hacks, do make stuff up or embellish and spotlight only one part of a varied story, do regularly cite unnamed sources and are completely worthless when it comes to actual, trustworthy journalism. The media had it coming.
Well, according to Senator McManiac, this was indicative of "how dictators get started," don'tcha know. He blasted Trump for being a big meanie to immigrants and minorities and, of course, restated the whole Russian angle. Can't talk about our new President without adding Russia, can we? Vladimir Putin is the "u" to the Trump administration's "q," according to the McCain-Graham-Ryan lunatics.
I entirely agree with Senator Rand Paul when he recently told ABC's This Week, "We're very lucky John McCain’s not in charge, because I think we'd be in perpetual war" and that "everything that he says about the president is colored by his own personal dispute he's got running with President Trump." Rand also said, "If you look at the map, there's probably at least six different countries where John McCain has advocated for us having boots on the ground."
McCain wants to be the star of the show and precisely because he cannot get past his 2008 Presidential defeat. He's a little old to act so jealously, but, as Senator Rand also said, "Not everyone is perfect."
To give McCain credit, he did blast Barry O. after the Orlando nightclub slaughter, correctly pointing out his failure in Iraq by preëmptively withdrawing the troops and not signing the Status of Forces Agreement, and he has voted for nearly all of Trump's cabinet picks. I have, however, had it with his maverick status. It's old, like him, and it needs to be retired—again, like him. Time this man stopped schmoozing with Saudi and United Arab Emirates sheiks, sit back on the porch in Arizona and watch the tarantula hawks pollinate the milkweeds. It's over, Johnny. I honestly don't know what's pricklier, a saguaro cactus or you.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

No popular vote, no Super Bowl trophy? #LiberalsGottaGrowUp

Allow me to take a stab in the dark here, mes amis, and posit that, outside of New England, people have seized upon the hashtag "Not My Super Bowl Champions".
I can understand the bitter sense of resignation for other denziens of the nation that comes with witnessing a particular team or city enjoy what may be considered too much sporting success. Yankees fans, and New Yorkers in general, have dealt with that sentiment since the '20s. Chicago and Los Angeles have also had their dynasties. Boston witnessed an incredible 2000s and has seen the Bruins and Red Sox triumph once and the Patriots twice in this decade (so far). It's been a long time since the New England sports scene was "Losah-ville".
History has determined that there are two paths people can choose in dealing with a super successful team. You either dedicate your life to hating them with as much spitfire as you can muster, or you take the "if you can't beat them, join them" approach and become a fan yourself, despite the fact that you don't live in the city or part of the country where they're based. But if you're going to indulge the whole "Not My Super Bowl Champions" trend, then you're allying yourselves with violent Leftists who are also calling for Tom Brady's assassination. Are you sure you want to go there?

"Are you still here, Roger?"
(Photo: Getty Images)

I realize we New England fans might be insufferable with our "Yankees suck!" chants, even during events where the Yankees are nowhere in sight, our die-hard nature, sense of determinism (or fatalism) and especially our nutcracker vowels. Understood, dear reader. But that's the way we are and we aren't going to change for anyone. Start learning to deal with it.
The Patriots have a great name with an equally great symbol. I do miss the old Paul Revere-looking dude hiking the ball, but the "Flying Elvis" is also cool. It's all so ... well, patriotic. We have the best owner a team could hope to have in Robert Kraft, the greatest coach the game has known in Bill Belichick. And we possess the best quarterback the game has ever witnessed in Tom Brady.
Like him or not, whinge about his friendship with Donald Trump (as with Belichick and Kraft), hate on him because you think he magnifies this fairy tale known as "white privilege," but he is the best quarterback there has ever been. Forgive me, but I don't want to hear about Joe Montana, Brett Favre, Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers. I really don't want to hear about Tony Romo, Ben Roethlisberger or Robert Griffin III. I especially don't wish to entertain the thought of either of the Manning brothers. Don't even!
They were all great, or at least very good to some extent. Nonetheless, Tom Brady is quite simply the best QB to have ever donned an NFL uniform, and good luck arguing against that. He lost a season due to injury. He has been accused of deflating footballs to suit his hands, despite Aaron Rodgers pumping balls a little too taut to suit his hands and about which nobody made a federal case. Brady has been described as too flashy, a show-off and perhaps a little feminized by his model wife Gisele Bundchen.
People forget that this guy is the very essence of teamwork. He beat an excellent Steelers team in 2004 while battling a severe case of the 'flu. He has consistently gone above and beyond in his role with the team and looks fit to carry on for at least another two seasons. If he does this, he will retire at 42. Five Super Bowl rings and perhaps six or even seven by the time he hangs it up. Any further questions about how phenomenal this guy is? Do you still want to argue about quarterbacks?
The progressives have brought their sudden obsession with the popular vote into this Super Bowl result. They allege that the Atlanta Falcons carried the popular vote across the country, and I don't doubt they did. As I noted, there is a lot of hate directed at the Patriots outside of New England. So what do these snowflakes want? Let's not even play the game and just give the Vince Lombardi trophy to the Falcons because "they won the popular vote"? Is there no level of insanity, of total and complete unreality, that the libtards will not sink to? At this stage, the answer is quite clearly "no".
Do you see what being "best friends" with your children and awarding them a trophy simply for participating, or even losing, has done to this pathetic generation? If they actually do bother to work, they enter the workplace on the first day and wonder why they haven't been awarded the CEO's office by the time five o'clock rolls around.
Buck up, buttercups. You really need to start acknowledging how the world really works. If you can bring yourself to put the bongs away for long enough.

*   *   *
Incidentally, ladies and gents, I believe I have found the proof of collusion between Russia and President Trump that everyone has been scrambling to present evidence of:

That's right, smack-dab in the City of London (the ancient financial district), Russia Row leads into Trump Street. I swear this is not doctored, look it up on Bing or Google Maps for yourselves.

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Return free speech to college campuses NOW!

They went on the rampage in Berkeley, the poor, oppressed little buttercups. And aren't they lucky they have a hobbit like Robert Reich to give them cover?
Reich, the former Secretary of Labor for the Clinton administration, was speaking to Don Lime Lemon and opined that right-wingers were, in fact, the troublemakers who invaded the University of California Berkeley campus and then went on to terrorize Telegraph Avenue, attacking banks, and that's how you know they were Lefties, Reich's assertion be damned. It was a tell-tale sign, as it were. Their rampage also targeted a Starbucks coffee shop and an Amazon pop-up store, because both of those companies are well-known for their extremist right-wing, anti-refugee views. Yep, yep.
This sacking and looting horde of "alt-right" white supremacists supposedly hired by Breitbart News—allow me to further indulge this fantasysmashed windows, tipped over a generator-powered mobile light pole and lit it so it could create a huge diesel fire, crisping one of Sproul Plaza's 60-year-old London plane trees, tore down barricade fencing and used the sections as weapons, invaded the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Center, and beat the bejezus out of those students who had assembled to hear the cancelled speech by Milo Yiannopoulos.
Yiannopolous is a "right-wing provocateur," according to the too-numerous press releases I've read. He is an editor at the aforementioned Breitbart News, so there's the link between the destroying barbarians and right-wing populism, as proscribed by the media and the Left. Exactly why Yiannopolous chose to end his "Dangerous Faggot" tour like this goes unexplained. The Left isn't known for providing details, just pretexts.
But who else is this man Milo? He's gay and very open about it. Yiannopolous is not latent about his homosexuality as anyone who's ever listened to his podcast can attest to. He is a devout Catholic who loathes third-wave feminism and does not hold back in his criticism of it and its defense of abortion and embrace of radical Islam. He's a foreigner in America, an Englishman of Greek heritage. Ethnically, he is also part Jewish. Finally, his boyfriend is a black guy. And don't give me that Milo probably exerts his "privilege" by being the top. That's none of your business. Stay out of people's bedrooms, liberals. Am I right?
So, we are to believe that this "white nationalist," as the press also loves to identify Mr. Yiannopolous, would take a black lover? Is this not insane? Why don't the liberals acknowledge the interracial openness of his relationship?
Furthermore, where's the Anti Defamation League to defend this ethnic part-Jew? Where is the Catholic church leadership and the Vatican itself in protecting one of its flock? Why has the LGBT community not got its brother's back?
Milo Yiannopolous is everything that the press and the progressives would normally love. Except he's conservative, anti-political correctness, pro-Trump and defies the extremist liberal narrative. Therefore, he must wear the white nationalist label according to these self-styled moral arbiters.
Morality to the Left is telling you to embrace diversity and take a "migrant" into your home while excusing themselves from having to do the same or even having them in their swank neighborhoods which are so bohemian—and lily-white. Some people are more equal than others, y'know. You're the ignorant sheeple and you will do what you're told. If you don't want to be regarded as naïve and uneducated, do as we say (but not as we do). There's the politics of the New Left—progressivism, socialism, Marxism, Communism, "opposing the man"—as we know it.
Just ask the people of Cuba who dream about liberty. Oh yeah, they're either stuck on the prison island itself or shanghaied in Mexico and Central American countries because Saint Obama got tough on their ability to emigrate to America. Nice one, Dear Leader. Level of outrage on the Left? Zero, zilch, nada, nothing. I guess allowing subjects of the murderous Castro regime to live free is "not who we are".
Alas, I digress. Robert Reich, currently a public policy professor at UC Berkeley, and who clearly chose to be an economist over a crowd-drawing spectacle in Barnum & Bailey's Circus, which given his dearth of verticality was likely his only other option in life, reported that he could not see any of his students among the rioters at Berkeley. Well, firstly, what were you doing there, Mr. Reich, when you should have been home sipping Napa Valley Chardonnay, and secondly, you must have incredible superpowers of observation if you can spot and recognize members of a student population of 38,204! I'm impressed, little dude. Reich could not have seen over my back, never mind that of a six-footer's. I wonder what his secret is.
"I was there for part of last night, and I know what I saw," Reich reported on the February 3 edition of CNN Tonight. "Those people were not Berkeley students. They were outside agitators. So Donald Trump, when he says Berkeley doesn't respect free speech rights, that's a complete distortion of the truth. There are rumors that they were right-wingers, they were part of a group that were organized and ready to create the tumult and danger you saw that forced the police to cancel the event."
The Left has a history of accusing their opponents, their enemies, of exactly the sort of things they themselves do. For instance, all we heard previous to the election was that if Trump had lost, his supporters would have rioted. Hillary Clinton lost instead, and what happened? Riots. And they haven't stopped. Yet neither Robert Reich nor Don Lemon nor any of these losers posing as journalists will make that point, will they?
Nor, now that I think about it, will they point out that for all the Right's supposed anti-environmentalism, Tea Party and Pro-Life marches leave the streets and parks cleaner than before these rallies take place. The recent "women's march," as with Obama's 2008 inauguration, as with every other traveling Leftie mass indoctrination event, created what you'd swear was a new landfill site. We certainly did not create the environmental near-disaster that is the Oceti Sakowin camp near the Cannonball River in North Dakota which is going to require a huge effort on the part of the federal government to clean up. Members of the local Sioux community are beside themselves at the sprawling litter containing various forms of detritus and jetsam that the Dakota Access Pipeline protestors left behind. Ask them if extremist liberals care about the environment.
I wish these inspired young people would spend more time organizing street, park and forest clean-ups as opposed to creating more CO2 in complaining about "climate change". They could literally change the world if they did that, but golly gee, it involves actual work, so we won't be seeing it anytime soon. The Right would do it, but alas and alack, we have jobs and our own families that take up our time. We have these things known as responsibilities. We do our part by trying to keep the bums who create these messes far away from our communities.
The thing I cannot get past is the Berkeley students who distanced themselves from the agitators the next day, citing Yiannopolous's free speech. The same ones who carried signs announcing "Trans Dykes Are Good" and "Bash the Fash" told stories about how concerned they were that the original home of The Free Speech Movement was the site of violent intolerance. A 20-year-old student, Russell Ude, told the press, "Berkeley has always stood for self-expression. Things like this discredit peaceful protest."
Legendary UC Berkeley professor John Searle noted that the cancellation of Yiannopoulos's speech was "an absolute scandal" and that "free speech has to be allowed for everyone." Dan Mogulof, a spokesman for the school, said that "it was not a good night for this campus. We are proud of our history and legacy as the home of the free-speech movement." The Associated Press reported that in the aftermath of the violence, the University of California at Berkeley "struggled with questions of why the violence spun out of control and what has happened to the open-minded Berkeley of the 1960s."
So why did a 1,500 strong group of reportedly peaceful protesters, who were exercising their free speech rights by denouncing Yiannapolous's "fascism," allow only just over 100 violent extremists to mar and disrespect their campus? Do the math—did they not have the advantage? I agree that UC Berkeley does have a proud and notable tradition of respecting free speech, but that has been on the slide as Black Lives Matter (Only When White People are Involved) and radical feminists and other assorted far Left rabble-rousers have put the kibosh on full freedom of speech and expression over the course of the past two years or so.
It was only this past October when radicals formed a blockade at one of the university's entrance gates, denying access to Sproul Plaza and refusing entry to white students but allowing transgender or non-white students through. White students had to traverse Strawberry Creek, which runs through the campus, in order to get to their classes as they could not cross the bridge spanning it.
UC Berkeley is a beautiful campus. Any alumnus of that university has a right to be proud of it. As a UMass-Boston alumnus, I can tell you that our small campus wasn't much, but it was lovely in its own way. There was an eerie beauty about the place, situated right by Boston Harbor, that I grew to love. Salty fogs would blanket the campus at times and then clear up to reveal an almost blindingly sparkling bay. It was a nice environment to attend university. And the majority of the student population would not have stood for radicals trying to burn it down.
I attended the school at a time when liberalism was on the uptick. Reganism was in retreat during the later years of the George H.W. Bush administration and Bill Clinton was rising in the polls. What I can remember during one contentious on-campus debate concerning the 1990 Massachusetts gubernatorial race between Democrat John Silber and Republican William Weld is that when some rally attendees tried to get confrontational, they were quickly put down. "Not on this campus, not here!" was one cry from the audience, assembled in front of McCormack Hall, that I heard.
Our newspaper, The Mass Media, was fiercely pro-free speech. I was the only conservative on the paper's editorial board. Yet, dominated by political/social liberals as our board was, we produced an editorial attacking the political correctness that was denigrating the "white, rifle-toting" Minuteman, the symbol of our larger sister campus in Amherst (where I had also attended prior to my matriculation at the Boston campus). This was in 1993, folks! I was so proud of my newspaper colleagues, these twenty-something liberals, and happy to identify myself with them, even though we disagreed on a lot. We worked together every week in the writing of the lead editorial and it was a fun life lesson in compromise and togetherness. We were as tight-knit as they come—and we positively relished free speech.
We recognized the horrors of authoritarianism. We were grateful that the Berlin Wall had come down and that the Soviet Union had been defeated in the Cold War and broken up. No-one would have ever thought to defend monsters like Fidel Castro. If you were looking for a challenge at UMass-Boston, that, mes amis, would have been the way to go about it.
Oh yeah, and as I recall, we regularly expressed our disgust at lush administrative salaries while working students struggled with tuition. Can you imagine any student newspaper, anywhere, discussing that now? Good grief, what has happened to our precious college campuses?

 My sweet little alma matter university campus 
(Photo courtesy of University of Massachusetts archives)

Yes, there were the seemingly old-as-time-itself issues of race relations, taxes, abortion, the role of public schools and people's rights and place in society just as there are today, but they were never explosive, not even in the wake of the L.A. riots. What was radical in 1992? The Veterans' Center hanging up a banner across their windows reading "Fuck Not Guilty!" That was that. (And, believe it or not, some students I'd talked to objected to the very open advertising of the F-word!)
I know what it was like to be a Berkeley or Columbia student in 1969. Yes, I didn't have a questionable war to worry about being drafted into service for, but I do absolutely have the experience of defending, and reveling in, the right to freedom of speech. During the early 1990s, there was a bit of Sixties redux, especially on college campuses like UMass-Boston, and I was absorbed into it. There was, however, never any violence.
My biggest fear regarding this trend is that another Kent State-style massacre is bound to happen somewhere eventually and that's the last thing I want to see. Those "four dead in Ohio" in 1970 did not deserve their fate, but it's hard to feel sorry for these anarchists if that's indeed who they were. One of these days, and it'll be soon if this madness continues, it won't be rubber bullets being shot at students but lead or copper alloy ones.
I repeat, I DO NOT want to see this. But, unless the Left learns this history lesson and damn quickly, it'll be a case of them reaping what they have sown. As always throughout history, they will have plenty of blood on their hands.
God spare our college campuses and save them from the radical Islamists and their brainwashed defenders, illegal alien "students," and the anarchists and anyone else who cannot be reasoned with, and return them to the centers of learning, uncensored exploration and self-expression for young American citizens or legal foreign students that they used to be. They are too dear to lose.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Bleeding hearts condemn Kurds for torturing ISIS "children"

It has been reported that soldiers of the Asayish, the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq, are accused of having beaten and tortured some children of ISIS, some of them as young as 11 years old. This was reported in several news sources, but I've chosen Yahoo! "News" because it is where I first read about it and because Yahoo! is risible 99.99 percent of the time. The report says:
At least 17 childrenall but one of which are Sunni Arabs from former Isis-held territory in northern Iraqhave alleged abuse and torture at the hands of Kurdish security services after being rounded up at a refugee camp 40 kilometres south of the Kurdish capital of Erbil. 
They say that the Kurdistan regional Government (KRG) security forcesknown as the Asayishpunched and kicked them, held them in stress positions and beat them with plastic pipes and cables. Nine of the young boys claimed to have been subjected to electric shocks. 
A 14-year-old boy told Human Rights Watch that he was threatened with rape unless he confessed to being affiliated with Isis, while two others said they had considered suicide because of their treatment by the Asayish.
Now we have the angle, ladies and gentlemen. We can definitively state the reason behind this news story. Human Rights Watch is involved. There you have it.
Like any normal person, who knows that ISIS brings its children up in an atmosphere of poisonous hatred from the day they are born, who knows that an 11-year-old in ISIS is a stone-hearted killer and nothing like 11-year-olds in the West, when you hear that the Kurds tortured these mini jihadists, you think, "Alright, good news for once!"
But alas, the liberal luvvies, the do-gooders, the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch parasites—who have nothing to say when Christians and Yazidis in Iraq and Syria are being systematically wiped out and when Israelis minding their own business are blown up by Hamas missiles and who offer no words of condemnation when Germans and Swedes are raped and assaulted in their own countries by barbaric invaders—want to condemn the good guys in the Middle East, the Muslims that we should be embracing. I have no words for this level of stupidity, I really don't.
Human Rights Watch couldn't give a stuff when the British people suffered as a result of George Soros sinking their currency in 1992, when he caused the UK Treasury to lose £3.2 billion. This thoroughly evil man bets against currencies everywhere and funds subversive, violent groups across the world with his ill-gotten trading gains, but the Remainiacs, the anti-Trump lunatics, the global citizen types are just fine with that. I guess their claim to want to "stick it to the rich" is absolute bunk.
What is Human Rights Watch's position on the carnage of September 11, 2001? Does Amnesty International take a side regarding the death of innocent American Kate Steinle who was killed by a five-times-deported illegal alien in a place where she should have been safe? Does the International Crisis Group or the International Red Cross and Crescent by any chance care to pontificate on the horror of the Pulse nightclub slaughter in Orlando last summer? Inquiring minds would love to know.
What I do know is that these contemptible boobs want to declare the Kurds war criminals. Not Turkey who've spent their entire history as a distinct nation trying to eradicate them. I'm sure Human Rights Watch has a lot to say about Erdoğan's continuous assault on Turkey's secular constitution, right? Of course not, because sharia law is so liberating, especially for women and homosexuals.
These same Commies who want to push the Israelis into the sea so that "Palestine" can have its (terrorist) state would never entertain the idea for the formation of an officially legitimate, world-recognized Kurdistan.
Yahoo! "News" (as well as CNN, MSN, etc.) publish these stories, with the typical progressive/suicidal/self-loathing slant, in the hopes that many people will respond with "OMG, the Kurds are so horrible! So what if the children are from ISIS? Brutality is brutality!" This is what these clowns from Reuters and the Associated Press count on. They are the kinds of people like the reporters from the mainstream media who ask Donald Trump what he means by keeping America safe, because they are so remarkably thick-headed.
But the responses from most of the readers—who live in the real world—must come as deeply disappointing and disturbing to them.
Some assorted gems from the news story comments thread: 

  • Some of the 'children' have been accused of beheading babies.
  • Be careful Kurds, the Liberal lefties will start protesting and demonstrating against you and you know how torturous that can be.
  • Are these the ones the media and lefties want Trump to let in?
  • OK, so what is the point of this press release? Is it to sum up some sympathy for ISIS?
  • What kind of world are we living in,when the do-gooders worry more about terrorists than our own people? The Kurds torturing those kids who would cut your throat as soon as look at you. Thanking the Kurds is more like it.
  • Good, I hope they kicked the #$%$ out of them.
  • To be perfectly blunt, I don't care, if there [sic] old enough to walk into a packed market with a suicide vest to wipe dozens of innocents, beating by comparison is nothing.
  • Who is funding the goons of Human Rights Watch? It seems to me if you pick up a gun to play a man's game, then you have to be prepared to accept a man's punishment when caught!
  • I have no issue with this.
  • Oh no ... They are getting tough treatment ... Oh no, this cannot happen, the lefties will want to have them sent to Germany or Sweden to kill and rape there. Tough justice is all this cult will get as they have caused endless horror in the Middle East, all paid for by Saudi Arabia and Obama's covert arms and funding madness!
  • Dreadful but good to hear it's out in the open. In the UK the mass rape of little girls by Muslim men has been kept under filthy political wraps by the socialist councils and media.
  • What so-called "Human Rights Watch" would you report that 1000s of Kurdish Yazidi child girls as young as age 3 have become sex slaves by ISIS terrorists?
  • Thank you Kurdish soldiers. Great job getting rid of this #$%$ by any means necessary.
  • These ISIS kids would have no hesitation in putting a bullet in an innocent person's head so tough #$%$, stop crying out when the table is turned.
  • These are NOT kids. They are soldiers. Soldiers that will kill men, at the drop of a hat.
  • Don't take prisoners just shoot them, kill them and let the animals eat what's left and it's cheaper option for you, better than jailing them.

And the most salient point of all?

  • Well, you reap what you sow.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

President Trump's first week in office: Executive orders and other various sundries

We have a new President of the United States, dear reader. For the first time in eight long-ass years, we have one that will speak to us, not at us. A President who, much like Mr. Reagan 30 years ago, will talk because he genuinely wants to address the American public and not because he views it as a mere formality to be delivered devoid of emotion in a near-monotone. One who can go off-script and explain himself or his policies without the "uhhhhhh"s, "errrrrr"s and assorted squeaks and whistles that accompanied Obama at the podium.
Klunk from Dastardly and Muttley in their Flying Machines was an entirely competent speaker compared to Asshat the 44th. Hell, Muttley himself, with his "rassa-frassa-frassa," could deliver a more lucid argument than B. Hussein Obama ever could without TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States).

Muttley: Compared to Barry Hussein Obama, a polished speaker of renowned eloquence

Do you want to know how committed this allegedly mysogynistic Grand Wizard of the KKK President of ours is to America and its people? Get a load of the executive orders Trump has signed since taking office last week:
(1) He has fulfilled his promise to halt arrivals from hotbeds of Islamic terrorism by banning immigration from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia should have been included on that list, but what they hey, I'll gladly take it.
(2) He has sought to clamp down on "the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens" of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. This is the first step in dismantling the bureaucratic nightmare of Obamacare so that a more equitable and free market-based health care system can be hashed out by the Republican Congress.
(3) Trump has re-instituted the so-called Mexico City Policy which bans the U.S. from funding the global abortion industry, preventing non-governmental organizations from encouraging abortions. The policy is named after the location of a U.N. Conference on population in 1984 where President Ronald Reagan first announced the strategy.
(4) An order was signed to start rebuilding our military in the wake of all the plunder and neglect it suffered under the Obama administration.
(5) Mr. Trump signed an executive order which put a freeze on governmental regulations until they can be fully read and researched—and rejected if they do nothing to advance energy independence, business or job creation. Another executive order was signed freezing the federal workforce. Both were long overdue.
(6) At long last, the Keystone/Dakota Access pipeline has been approved. Another milestone on the road to American energy self-sufficiency.
(7) Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the Trans Pacific Partnership, which was designed to be the Asian/Pacific Rim equivalent of the European Union. Also, the North American Free Trade Agreement will be renegotiated, if the Mexicans don't withdraw from that. More on that in a bit.
(8) Trump has cut federal funding to sanctuary cities across the country. Another measure that is long overdue. If the mayors of these cities will not follow the law, then Trump is absolutely right to break them by refusing government funding for their cities. The policy is working. Already, Miami has capitulated.
(9) Last but certainly far from least, "the Wall" is being built and, with Trump in charge of the project, the whole thing will be done in three months with no sacrifices in quality.
Mexico says it will leave NAFTA if work on the Wall doesn't cease and the policy is not immediately reversed. That's supposed to be a threat? Hey, Mexico, you made a $60 billion trade surplus from NAFTA over the past seven years, but you refuse to stump $15 billion for the Wall, which will stop Central Americans from flooding your country because they won't be steaming northward anymore? Good, we don't need your narco-state mooching off America's generosity anymore. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you, amigos. We'll trade L.L. Bean flannel shirts with the hockey-heads to the north of us instead and we'll be just dandy.
Mexico says that the construction of the Wall is an assault upon its dignity. That's odd, because I didn't think it had any considering it is a one-party oligarchy whose presidents, including the current Enrique Peña Nieto, are controlled by the nation's drug cartels, and won't even allow its citizens to possess equalizers. How dignified of you, Mexico.
This country has, since NAFTA was signed 24 years ago, become an exporting powerhouse. It exports practically everything. Factories left the American Rust Belt to reöpen in Mexico, sometimes just a measly ten miles south of the border. Its exports are worth $400 billion per year. Yes, I'll say that again: Mexico's exports are currently worth 400 billion dollars a year, with 80 percent of those exports going to the U.S., tariff-free. And Mexico wants to throw that all away because of an assault on its "dignity"? Talk about unhinged. Go ahead, Mexico. Honestly. Make the gringo's day.
Now then, no true conservative wants a President to operate with just a pen and a phone. It is because Obama ran his occupation of the White House this way which merited a similar response from the new President, to reverse some of the damage. I'm in no mood to attempt to pursue any of these things through Congress only for McConnell and Ryan to stall their progress and pontificate to the oh-so-unbiased media from the high moral ground that they think they have, and I'm not alone. Screw Congress. Get some major, policy-shifting stuff enacted now and let's see if Congress doesn't eventually get dragged into the nationalist zeitgeist. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire and, with these numerous executive orders, this is just what Mr. Trump is doing.
Make no mistake about it, this is excellent work by the new Prez and it demonstrates that he is standing by his campaign promises and acting on the issues that allowed him to connect with the electorate.
Although too much power in the hands of any President is a negative, especially as the Constitution does not allow for it, Trump's first week has seen him sign executive orders that are absolutely conservative, not "populist". They are conservative because they address the nation's economic health, its security and its respect for life as well as its robust rejection of globalism.
If you "purists"—you Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol and George Will types—refuse to give credit where it is due, if you cannot rise above your petulant jealousy of this man's wealth and the fact that he was more famous thirty years ago than you can ever hope to be, then I can't help you. You are clearly in league of your own—one that, rest assured, I'll never be seeking to join.
Meanwhile, President Trump has also launched an investigation into voter fraud. For those of you who think he is needlessly bringing up the election again, keep in mind that it was not he that started this. The media, in all its perversity, insisted on spreading the narrative that Mr. Trump's presidency is illegitimate and that he did not win the popular vote. I personally believe that I have heard the expression "the popular vote" more times in the past three months than I had in the forty-six years of my life which preceded them.
We know that the Democratic party machine brings in illegals to vote. In New Hampshire, for instance, they got bused into the polling places in Manchester and Nashua, entire hotels full of them. They all voted for Madame Hillary. The pantsuit stole New Hampshire, she stole Virginia and she possibly stole Colorado as well. Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta opined, in one of those now infamous e-mails of his, that it was fine for illegals to vote with driver's licenses. If we had media in this country with any integrity, this would be brought up. But as we absolutely do not, we have to go with what we know.
And what we know, courtesy of a study conducted by Professor Jesse Richman from Norfolk, Virginia's Old Dominion University, is that over 800,000 non-citizens voted for Hillary Clinton on November 8. Of the estimated 20 million illegals in the United States, Richman discovered 6.4 percent of them cast their votes for the Democrats, a number that equals 834,381. These are only those who were willing to admit it. And we're supposed to believe that Trump is wrong when he said 2 million illegal alien votes granted Clinton the popular vote? Give me a break.
In the brilliant words of Dan Bongino, who filled in for Mark Levin this Friday, "A survey was taken, and we all know that when it's a liberal survey that advances a liberal narrative, 'it's gold, brother. Just rock'n'roll with it, man. It's a liberal talking-point, of course the survey's real.' ... But what about when you ask people if they voted and they say yes and they weren't supposed to? 'No, no! No! Not that survey! Not that! There's no voter fraud. I can prove it! How? I don't know, I'm a liberal. I said it, and the media will say it, so it's gotta be real. It was on CNN, so it's definitely true. I saw it on MSNBC, that means that it actually happened, c'mon.' Oh, OK, yeah, that sounds legit."
Since the Democrats and their media lapdogs won't try to prove to us that this many illegal aliens didn't vote, we must pursue the proof that they did. Trump is on the case and, ladies and gentlemen, these law-breakers and frauds in the Democratic party will get exposed. I fully support this investigation.
Finally, I have to say, it's amazing just how hateful the Democrats continue to be in the wake of Trump's election victory and inauguration. Bad enough they would consider a racist/anti-Semite like Keith Ellison, every bit a radical community disorganiser as Obama, for chair of the Democratic National Committee. Now we have a Caucasian woman from Idaho running for the role named Sally Boynton Brown.
If you want to talk about the sick obsession with race that these unfortunates have, listen to Brown. At a Washington D.C. meeting of the seven candidates vying for control of the DNC, Brown told all those assembled:
My job is to listen and be a voice and my job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt. My job is to shut other white people down when they want to say, "Oh no I'm not prejudiced I'm a Democrat, I'm accepting." My job is to make sure that they get that they have privilege and until we shut our mouths and we listen to those people who don't, we're not going to break through this.
Brown also implored the audience of malcontents to consider the fact that "we are so white" in Idaho. Great. Bravo. That's some really keen political insight there. I'm still trying to figure out what the problem is, though I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that Boise and Twin Falls haven't been totally taken over by young Afghan and Somali men yet.
Sally Boynton Brown has since reported that, in the wake of her vile observations at the DNC candidate conference, that her family has been threatened. Alright, well, I'm going to go ahead and say that this woman can't possibly love her family too much anyway to have said things that are so contemptuous of their race. What does it say that she wants a job so badly that she has to sound even more loathing of white people than Ellison or Black Lives Matter (Only When White People are Involved) in order to try and secure it? If I was any son of hers, I'd run far away from home, only after leaving a note behind reading, "Dear Mom, sorry I'm a white boy. I have gone to Africa in an attempt to figure out how the black race is so much better and superior to mine. Goodbye."
What kind of pathetic, milquetoast of a man would be married to this shrew? Honest to God, don't tell me this woman isn't fantasizing about somebody else or somebody else's, if you get my drift, every time they hit the sack. Kind of ironic that her last name is Brown. Just thinkin' out loud here, folks.
Disgusting beyond belief. Sally Boynton Brown, you and your type are the real deplorables in this country. But hey, good luck on becoming DNC chairwoman. It'll ensure a conservative-nationalist in the White House for quite some time to come.
And on that note, mes amis, if you're going to tell me that I am obligated to learn lessons about respect for the gentler sex from women wearing hats that look like vaginas and cheering a genuine mental case who couldn't stop mentioning the p-word and how that is integral to women's success, then I say in all sincerity: Get on your knees and blow me! Or grow up. Let the record show that I'll eagerly accept either.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Fake news is alive and well in the waning days of Obama's occupation of the White House

I want to see if I've got this right, dear reader. The torture of some worthless raghead jihadists in Abu Ghraib was in the headlines everywhere as the most evil thing that the U.S. military had done since the Tet Offensive or assisting Britain in bombing the bejesus out of Dresden. Just awful, soul-sapping stuff, y'know? We Americans could never live that one down. We know this was a massive human rights fiasco because the usual suspects who judge such things—the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International—told us so.
The torture of a young mentally disabled white man by four mindless thugs appeared in the news on a fractional basis only and the media was desperately trying to cover it up and put their typical spin on it. And when I say "typical spin," you know that it is as far removed from unbiased journalistic integrity as you can get, right? Does Amnesty International have any comment on this? I thought not.
Anyhoo, some hack called Don Lemon opined on air that he didn't consider what the four yout's put the disabled chap through to be evil. It was just "bad home training," don't you know. As if they're wayward puppies, though I do have to say that I'm surprised their crackhead mothers—let's not even pretend they had stay-at-home fathers—took the time to toilet train them. To Lemon's point, that's probably the best home training they had ever received. Oops, there I go being judgmental again. How dare I?
First of all, why we even stop to regard these anchors and reporters or whatever they're supposed to be with as much time and consideration as we do is beyond me. I could never give a stuff about Don Lemon. I know that being both gay and black is a huge plus in the media and therefore an instant elevator to having you narrate the goings-on of the latest riot that the "news" corporation you work for helped to foment. I'm not big on identity politics though, so again, give me a reason to care about his tequila-swilling ass, please.
On New Year's Eve, Lemon was live on the air, supposedly working for his unproportionate fame, and he was telling the Clinton News Network viewers—and shame on them, incidentally, for providing the ratings—between hiccups that he might be in a relationship again and he's going to have some personal new year's resolutions and blah-de-blah. Don Lemon—or should we refer to you as "Don Lime" henceforth, as Texas talk-show host Chris Salcedo suggests?—let me be frank: You could walk off a cliff tomorrow and the only way I'd know about it is because talk-show hosts would be citing it as if it meant anything to we the listeners' lives. Honestly, I would not care one iota.

I'm Don Lemon. I'm a superstar because I'm gay and black and am oh-so-concerned about "fake news"

It's the same deal with Kelly Megyn. Or Megyn Kelly. Which is it? Damned if I know. The bint is "Me-Again Kelly," as far as I'm concerned. Again, I have no idea why I'm expected to care about her to any measurable degree—which, rest assured, I do not—but surely her true colors have come out now? She was a conservative to advance her career at FOX. Roger Ailes wanted her to flick her hair and pout for the camera and she did like the good little filly that she is.
Once Kelly started letting her own mind, inasmuch as she possesses one, take over, it is obvious where she stood: Pro-Hillary Clinton and anti-"deplorables". She could have no further career at FOX, the presence of Shepard Smith be damned. The moment she called the hacks at NBC News, her new home, "journalists" and said she had great respect for them, I knew I had the ultimate confirmation of her Leftie credentials that I'd been fuming about for a year to date. Yet there are still some people that will remain loyal observers and follow her tail anywhere. Well, if they want to waste their lives like that, let them. Just goes to show the hypnotic power of good female legs for men and some nebulous embrace of girl-power for women, I guess.

Megyn Kelly's legs have great respect for the "journalists" at NBC. Or would that be the other way around?

One of the more troubling aspects of British life, that has now started to trickle down into American life, is the building up of people only to tear them down later. It's like a bloodless form of throwing miscreants to the lions, the sporting event that so delighted the Roman citizenry. It used to be that you'd say it reflects badly on the Brits because their misplaced affection for socialism meant that they had no respect for success outside of government. That is still true to a certain extent—and no wonder that trend has taken off in Obama-nation.
However, I'm beginning to realize that there is an upside to it. We build up people, who have no business being celebrities in the first place, and we tear them down when they overstep the line. Like Lily Allen and Gary Lineker, here in Britain, who think that just because they're household names that they can lecture the British people about our responsibility to those precious migrants pouring into Europe—you know, those hordes of stout-hearted young men who burn churches and shout "allahu akbar" while looking for women to sexually harass and accost? I do feel that a slapdown, which is what so many of these entertainers, be they singers, musicians, actors or newspeople deserve, is entirely merited.
How am I to have any faith in these people when they cluck about "fake news," but present "hands up, don't shoot" as if it actually happened? When they told us that Hillary Clinton was up by twelve points with a month left to go before the election and there was no way Donald Trump could win? When they routinely sweep stories that defy their childish narrative of "it's not fair" under the rug and willingly embrace the creation of a Ministry of Truth so that anyone who dares not to be a moonbat can be silenced and prosecuted for challenging the portrait painted by the powers-that-be? First Amendment? LOL, what First Amendment?
This media covered every single instance of made-up "hate crimes" committed by people who, golly gee, just happened to be obvious Trump supporters. And have we got an apology from Don Lemon or Wolf Blitzer or Jake Tapper or Brian Williams or any other brilliant apparatchik "reporter" for any of this truly fake news? The hell we have!
Some dumbass YouTube user claimed he was kicked off a Delta Airlines flight because complaints were raised by fellow passengers that he was speaking Arabic. Oh the horror! You were an obvious racist if "news" of that did not enrage you and ruin your day and whereupon being notified of it, you did not immediately search for the nearest thobe-wearing, dark-bearded individual you saw, of which there is absolutely no shortage in the Western world today, and exclaim rapturously, "My brother, my fellow world citizen, have you heard about the bigoted indiginities suffered by brother Adam Saleh?!"
In the words of Oliver Darcy writing in The UK Business Insider:
Many outlets, however, negated to note an important fact: The individual in question was a YouTube prankster known for pulling similar viral stunts. Only after the prankster's claims were disseminated across all corners of the internet did his past enter the picture in a meaningful way. Delta eventually denied his claim.
How about the media adopting the line that Trump is anti-Semitic even though his son-in-law, Jared Kushner is an Orthodox Jew, his daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism to marry him and that his grandchildren from this marriage are Jewish? How about the fact that Donald Trump's White House will feature a kosher kitchen? Ignore all that. He's anti-Semitic because Steve Bannon is his chief strategist and senior counselor, even though there's no evidence of any anti-Semitism on Bannon's part either.
Is this "fake news" enough for you yet?
This same media that is so concerned about Jews—which I suppose is why they coddled the Muslim Brotherhood Leader-in-Chief for eight long years—had nothing to say about the egregious anti-Semitism of John Kerry when he recently told Israel that it could not be both Jewish and democratic. This administration exclaimed in front of the United Nations that the Jewish people are incapable of democracy unless they get hip to the concept of being pushed into the sea by their hateful neighbors, and what do you got? Nothing to see here, folks, move along.
Don't even get me started on this whole Russia hacking nonsense. Yes, Russia hacks us. So has every other rogue country the world has to offer. Madame Mao left secret information out in the open on a banquet plate for them to pick from, for Chrissakes. But, to push an angle that benefits the narrative and not the truth, which is that the DNC was hacked by a fed-up Bernie Sanders supporter who was soon after conveniently murdered, the Democratic party machine and the media who dances to its every beat has to pawn electoral incompetency off on the machinations of Vladimir Putin. You see, we can call Vladimir Putin evil. That's okay. That's just dandy.
Even Rolling Stone, a bastion of fake news if ever there was one, has had enough. On December 30, Matt Taibbi wrote, in a piece sub-titled "Nearly a decade and a half after the Iraq-WMD faceplant, the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment":
On one end of the spectrum, America could have just been the victim of a virtual coup d'etat engineered by a combination of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which would be among the most serious things to ever happen to our democracy. 
But this could also just be a cynical ass-covering campaign, by a Democratic Party that has seemed keen to deflect attention from its own electoral failures. 
The outgoing Democrats could just be using an over-interpreted intelligence "assessment" to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration and force Trump into an embarrassing political situation: Does he ease up on Russia and look like a patsy, or escalate even further with a nuclear-armed power?
Thanks, Rolling Stone. Keep this up and you just may make up for the college rape epidemic BS that you pushed and the disgusting lionizing of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that had Margery Eagan and moonbat women everywhere drenching their knickers while indulging Jane Austen-style scenarios involving Flash Bang himself.
Forget John McManiac and Little Lindsey for the sake of sanity. We know they're beholden to the defense industry and all the contracts that flourish under it, so the case for wanting war with Russia, and the subsequent prolonging of efforts against ISIS for several decades, that they're making is obvious.
What gets me is the whole "17 intelligence agencies" BS. I was honestly unaware that the United States, as admittedly and horribly bureaucratic as it is, not only had seventeen members of the "intelligence community," but that apparently even more exist with which to point the tip of the greater-than symbol at. In other words, to say that seventeen intelligence agencies agree on the Russian hacking of "our democracy" insinuates the presence of a few rogue agencies, who I'm sure if they existed would eventually be batter-rammed into line. After all, only John Brennan was spouting this nonsense. Then James Clapper and James Comey piped up. And there's your "seventeen intelligence agencies".
You see, the seventeen intelligence agencies confirming the Russian hacking of the 2016 election in favor of Trump must be every bit as accurate as the sixty-five member coalition that Obama has fighting against ISIS. What made the government choose the number seventeen for this story? I don't know, it's probably a reference to Joe Biden's IQ.
And yet, if the evidence against Russia is so overwhelming, just where the hell is it? Why must this godforsaken government under Obama be so secretive about every damn thing? We couldn't know the details of TPP and now we're told to believe these incompetents with regard to the tipping of the election toward Trump because of Russia despite the lack of any public dissemination of proof. 
Here's the thing: Out of all the nonsense being alleged in this phony report, the one thing that isn't is that this Russian interference changed the vote count. Clapper has said there is no evidence of this. So what is this anti-Russia angle all about then? It's about the heads of all these agencies, all five of them (not seventeen), all of them globalists, merely trying to discredit the nascent Trump presidency. That's all, folks. Simple as that.
By the way, where is the pantsuit on the torture of the young white man in Chicago? She informs us that Putin holds an obvious grudge against her, that Trump is "spouting the Putin line," and that we must believe in the sanctity of the Russian hacking report. When it could really benefit her, and the Democrats in general, to have something to say roundly condemning the bitterness, hatred and division consuming the country—that they entirely causedand explicitly expressed in the beating and torture of the 18-year-old special needs man by those who forced him to yell "fuck Trump" and "fuck white people," she is silent. Keith Ellison is silent. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are silent. I'm not surprised. They're no doubt searching for more fictional stories about Muslim women getting their hijabs knocked off by white men wearing "Make America Great Again" baseball caps to scream about.
Jeepers, I could just scream. I certainly have every night in my dreams since November 5, 2008.