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.
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.
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 caused—and 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment