Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Breaking News - Media Discovers Donald Trump is a Man
Feigning outrage over the insignificant is a favorite maneuver utilized by the practitioners of Democrat Party dirty tricks -- said practitioners, of course, exemplified by the mainstream media, a disturbing number of whose members betray themselves as something akin to anxious socialists in waiting. Thanks to these folks, unbiased journalism, as once defined, hovers perilously in the United States, its implications limping along in both the modern media and in journalism schools whose progressive professors tow and teach the party line. If true journalism and a good, non-corrupt national government existed today, the Obama bunch (including Hillary, who allegedly had her own special way of treating women -- Bill's women) would be safely tucked away in prison cells, unable to perpetrate the immense domestic and foreign damage which will truly be their legacy in future historical records.
So, oh-wow, Trump had a conversation recorded 11 years ago during which he talked like millions of men talk every day about women and sex -- and, as a matter of fact, talked the way women do about men in military barracks and colleges, with only the gender changed. Trump, a Democrat in 2005 when The Big Mouth-Off occurred, made the mistake of talking in the presence of a microphone, true enough. Yet, the TV show, "Access Hollywood," featuring Trump's appearance (hosted by Billy Bush, a cousin of THOSE Bushes, by the way...), surely owes a lot of its success to actresses who do nothing BUT sell and promote sexual attributes. See any female music videos lately? But I guess it's perfectly acceptable, and indeed paramount that we witness spirited conversations about transgendered body parts.
What was this all about? We'll find no mystery here. It was about poisoning Trump's water in advance of Sunday night's debate. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, commands both props and "journalists" who serve to prop her up when things look bleak. Who wouldn't jump at the chance to defend an attorney (Queen Hil') who once successfully won a court case, dismissing charges against a child rapist? Who cares if Queen Hil' wanted to kill Julian Assange with a drone?
Meanwhile, Wikileaks released more about Hillary Clinton, including e-mails hacked from Hillary pusher John Podesta. From Hillary's own long-unavailable speeches we now learn of her professed desire for OPEN BORDERS in the U.S. Where was the media on that piece of news? How about her admitted preference here for saying one thing in public and another version behind closed doors? Most enlightening is information regarding Hillary's meetings with bankers, where she praises Wall Street movers and shakers because in her view they are the folks who understand the system and can best fix it! And how about her little comment about her and Bill's wealth effectively separating them from the middle class? If anybody leaps out of the darkness as a poster child for social engineering and self-privilege, it's Hillary Clinton.
But. . . Trump? Oh dear, dear, dear, what to do? He spoke dirty 11 years ago and it's on tape. Hillary Clinton's lies and indictable crimes vs. Donald Trump's vocalized indiscretions? Trump, mind you, is not responsible for American deaths, as is Clinton and the Obama bunch in Benghazi (nor do we know how many other lives were placed in jeopardy due to Clinton's "careless" e-mail actions).
Unfortunately, predictably, a gaggle of GOP senators, House members and other Republicans stepped forward to support hyped-up Democrat indignation regarding this otherwise fizzled matter, playing right into the slimy hands of Democrat operatives. What spells success more than manipulating leaders of the opposing political party into condemning their own presidential candidate? Will they never learn? Is it any wonder that the Republican Party endangers itself on a regular basis?
The question to be asked here is, who released this ancient video and for what reason? The second part seems obvious, but the rancid odor of agenda so prevails here that it comes as no surprise that the agenda-infested mainstream media would be all over this non-issue. More to come, no doubt.
As long as we're (sort of) bringing Hollywood into the mix, I've been thinking about lots of old, mostly deceased actors who appeared in so many memorable movies from the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies -- and the interesting fact that a good percentage of them were World War II and Korean conflict veterans, often decorated for their roles in combat. Their unique war experiences -- about which many of them would never speak in detail publicly -- somehow gave them an edge on practicing their craft. What a sad comparison to the current lot of actors and actresses, where pre-stardom life "experience" often seems to encompass little more than carefree childhoods, video games and dating relationships. How many can perform Shakespeare? How many even know who Shakespeare was? What do they know beyond money and bling? What have they sacrificed? And why in the hell are the rest of us expected to listen to them babble on off-screen as if they're experts on the environment, climate change and life in general?
Hack Attack: Russians, Chinese, North Koreans accessing American intelligence via computer break-ins? In this case, the "whom" doesn't matter as much as the "yes, we can," and the "can" part means the ability to hack into our elaborate Internet system. "We're all connected," claim the TV commercials, and it's true -- we can control home thermostats from the office and set up cameras in the nursery. The side-effect, however, is the well-established shocker that almost any ol' hacker can zero in and mess with everything others believe they control, independent of outside influences. Yes, we're all connected. Isn't it great? It is until we're all disconnected, until electrical grids and even basic communication facilities are taken down, along with other necessities and options which also disappear courtesy of digital puppet masters, both foreign and domestic.
Be truthful with yourself: If you had little to do but sit around all day and night in front of a computer screen, site-hacking your life away, wouldn't you be encouraged, maybe just one teeny-tiny time, to take over the guts in a digitally-enhanced automobile a hundred miles away and send its anonymously hapless occupants over a cliff? No? Sure about that?
We ask, too, that if millions of people needed to evacuate the East Coast because of Hurricane Matthew's potential, should we not consider that, just maybe, there are too many people, period? Services have become not only stretched, but nebulous as well when disasters occur. More is not always better, particularly when "more" references us.
Regrettably, we are led by a gang of, as yet, un-indicted criminals, supplemented by a cavalcade of morons, all consistently re-elected by adoring, uncaring, ill-informed voters. Beyond all of this. . .
...some scientists now suggest that human genetics prevent us from the ability to live beyond 115 years, taking the most optimistic viewpoint. That means a significant cross-section of humans can individually and comfortably enjoy a little over a century to continue turning this planet into a garbage dump.