The Meddling Media
The way that the media carries water for the Democrats, you have every right to wonder who signs their checks – their bosses at the NY Times, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, the Washington Post, or the DNC.
The way that the media carries water for the Democrats, you have every right to wonder who signs their checks — their bosses at the NY Times, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, the Washington Post, or the DNC.
When I heard recently that Mexico dumped several tons of raw sewage into the Tijuana River, knowing it would wash up on the California seashore, my initial thought was that it was a damn good start, but they’d have to do a lot better than that if they ever wanted to catch up with the American media which dumps that much in a typical week.
Until Hillary Clinton and her cohorts decided to blame her loss on Russia, I had never heard of Putin’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. But it seems to me that if even being in the man’s presence is as toxic as the media makes him out to be, perhaps we should give Kislyak the boot.
But in that case, why did Obama let him hang around so long and why did people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi meet regularly with him? It seems to me that if the man is as dangerous as the Democrats now claim him to be, the response at the State Department, upon receiving party invitations to the Russian embassy, should have been: “We’ll be delighted to show up for the borscht and blinis, but not if that good-for-nothing Kislyak is going to be there.”
It has been rumored and, naturally, denied that Obama had the Trump Tower wiretapped during the campaign. It certainly sounds like something Obama would have done. After all, we have already seen how little regard the man has for the law or the traditions of the office. It only took him 10 days into the Trump administration to start badmouthing his successor. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that George W. Bush, who never found reason to complain about Obama in eight disaster-filled years, wasted no time ripping President Trump. But, then, Obama hadn’t single-handedly destroyed the Bush dynasty.
Speaking of Obama, he and the missus recently signed a joint $60 million book deal with Penguin Random House. If that sounds astronomical, it is, even if it includes two books. By comparison, Bill Clinton received $15 million and G.W. Bush, just $10 million. What makes the deal so extraordinary is that Obama’s biggest fans can’t read.
Now I’m not a marketing maven, but the only chance that Penguin Random House has of recovering its investment is if the DNC buys up truckloads, as they did for Bill and Hillary, and then use them as giveaways to party donors.
In the latest incident of officers of the court colluding with criminals, a judge in Oregon let a drunk-driving illegal alien sneak out the back door of her courtroom when she got word that ICE agents were in the corridor waiting to take him into custody.
The question is whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions is going to be able to dole out justice to judges, mayors and governors, who feel they can flout federal law with impunity.
Because I am always campaigning to get rid of colleges and universities and replace them with trade schools for professionals, thus saving students and their parents four years and a king’s ransom, I was heartened by a recent one-two punch on Tucker Carlson’s Fox show. One night, he had Mike Rowe on to talk sense about all the high-paying jobs awaiting those who don’t care about getting a totally useless college degree; the next day, he had a guest who had created something called Awesome Jobs.
The purpose of Awesome Jobs is to have people train youngsters how to become productive and prosperous. The program starts out like a boot camp, getting people who have been able to waltz through high school, but haven’t yet learned to be disciplined and focused, to grow up in a hurry. The survivors then enter apprentice programs and are taught how to do something useful by professionals who have actually been doing it, and not, like their academic colleagues, merely talking about it.
In my own life, I know the difference. Although I had been a professional writer since I was 19-years-old, when TV assignments dried up in the 1990s and I tried to get a teaching gig, I couldn’t get hired because I hadn’t wasted x-number of years getting an English degree.
Someone sent me a scare piece that claimed that by 2036, there would be enough Muslims in the U.S. to elect the president.
Although I agreed with the rest of the message, which spelled out the reasons why Muslims are not a good fit in the United States, I wondered, as I often do, why so much that goes out on the Internet are obvious lies or paranoid fantasies.
I understand that Muslim families tend to have more children than most other groups, but there are only about 2.5 million Muslims living in the U.S. today. That is less than 1% of the 330 million. Even if those other 327.5 million suddenly stopped begatting, do you realize how long it would take for those 2.5 million to out-number the rest of us?
On that score at least, I don’t think we need to worry about their electing someone named, say, Barack Hussein Obama in the near-future.
At Middlebury College in Vermont, the fascistic students shut down a speech by sociologist Charles Murray. Their objection was that in 1994, Murray, in concert with Richard J. Herrnstein, came up with something called the Bell Curve, which some have deemed racist, concluding, incorrectly, that it argued that whites, thanks to genetics, are intellectually superior to blacks.
I think that by turning their backs on the speaker, chanting incessantly and then shaking the car in which Murray and a female professor were attempting to make their getaway, the students, who were predominantly white, made the strongest possible case against that simplistic conclusion.
What’s more, I am willing to wager that not a single member of the mob had bothered reading “The Bell Curve,” which runs 845 pages and has graphs, but no pictures. These are, let us not forget, Obama’s biggest fans.
There is a certain faction of conservatives that oppose Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s choice to fill the seat of Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
It’s not that they think he’s unqualified or even that, like David Souter, he’s a left-winger passing himself off as a moderate. Their objection is that they don’t believe him to be Pro-Life when it comes to abortion.
That happens to be the one so-called social issue where I am honestly conflicted. Although I strongly object to abortion being employed as a belated contraceptive, it seems to me that the most zealous among those who object to the procedure feel they hold the deed to the moral high ground. While I can sympathize with their belief, I feel that most of them never get past the Pro-Life talking points, and never pause to consider the futures that would await those unwanted, unloved, babies.
Where do these folks think drug addicts, welfare recipients and serial killers, come from? It’s certainly not from another planet.
When it comes to nomenclature, it occurs to me that we not only have a general tendency to misname things, but to reverse their meanings.
Take “social media,” for instance. Every time, I go to a restaurant, I am certain to spot three or four young people sitting in the same booth, each of them engrossed in their electronic toys, communicating with people who have the good fortune to be somewhere else.
Or consider “civil servants,” if you will. Not only are they not civil, but if you’ve ever tried to fire one of them, you have quickly discovered that they aren’t your servants; you’re theirs!
