Wednesday, May 30, 2018

ABC-TV Insults the Memories of Those Who Served

Come on, let's play the Roseanne tweet game, our version:  What do you get when you cross "Fahrenheit 451" with Joseph Goebbels? 

(Answer:  ABC-TV?)

On Monday, Memorial Day, ABC-TV was all over the theme of those who served, praising military men and women for sacrificing their lives and keeping us safe.  Maybe we're wrong, but we'll assume this profound heap of thanks also included some appreciation for the rights we enjoy uniquely as Americans, all of them pretty much set in stone.

Now flash forward to Tuesday, when Roseanne Barr -- no way a political conservative, incidentally -- tweeted something unkind, considered racist by many, and suddenly her ABC show was canceled, instantly putting both Roseanne and her fellow actors and crew into instant unemployment.

Then the Pod People Express breezed in, and all current and past Roseanne shows were taken off the air at Hulu and other entities, and even her agent quit.  Funny how we increasingly emulate the old Soviet Union, quickly wiping away that which is until scarcely a memory remains.

By the way, we really should add that we thought Planet of the Apes (the original) was a good movie, and we might also mention that all decent people should absolutely hate the Muslim Brotherhood, considered a terror group in Egypt.  Speaking of Islam, how about that radicalized fellow in Belgium who killed police officers also valued as good mothers this weekend?  Anything for Allah, we suppose?

As far as the rest of the stuff Roseanne tweeted about a former Obama staffer goes, well, we really don't care, unless criminal investigations are involved -- though we wonder how this burnt offering would have gone down had Roseanne picked on anybody but a charter member, a senior advisor, of Obama, Inc.  A slam against Trump's world likely would have elicited virtually no attention from the nanny division at ABC/Disney.

But the point here is that nobody has a right NOT TO BE offended in this country, and, yes, yes, YES -- military personnel by the hundreds of thousands fought and died in order to preserve the rights we've come to expect and to cherish, and that very much from the get-go includes the First Amendment and the privilege of saying pretty much what one wants to say.  So one should lose their career over words?

On Tuesday ABC-TV trounced that right and violated every honor it bestows upon departed service people, and they did it simply by giving Roseanne the heave-ho based upon words.  Words.  Freedom of. . .well, you know.  If free speech can be defined as hate speech with consequences, we're all in very, very serious trouble (example:  check out colleges and universities populated by snowflake students), and ABC just exemplified the horrors in store for those who allow our precious freedoms to escape into the sort of darkness ABC perpetrated this week. 

TV networks teeming with progressives are nobody's friends.  Further, they simply don't get it.  A good share of voting Americans are beyond enraged at the absolutely inept, "zero tolerance" decisions handed out routinely by this bunch, a gaggle of supposedly (in their minds, anyway) intelligent folk, frequently brain-fed with elite educations by institutions imparting fantasy.  A clue:  They still can't understand why Hillary isn't President today (hint: terrible candidate). 

ABC (also owners of Disney), we suspect Walt Disney would be turning over in his grave, though his opinion of Roseanne might be up for grabs.  Of course, Walt could turn over in his grave, but he wouldn't dare speak words contrary to ABC's "values," would he?

Two questions for ABC executives:  Exactly what do you folks really think of military members who sacrificed so you could rake in the dollars and enjoy your families in relative safety every day?  And do you turn on the patriotic word machine only because they're deceased and photo ops at cemeteries make your network appear compassionate to AMERICAN values, or is there any substance there at all?

Break out the tissues (but keep shooting):  If one breaks into a store, one may become gunshot-horizontal courtesy of the owner.  Should strangers enter and occupy a home without permission in the middle of the night, enjoying satellite TV and free food as the owner sleeps, to be rewarded with an armed confrontation by said owner would not seem out of the question.

An Arizona border patrol agent shoots and kills a woman, age 20, from Guatemala and the mainstream media go nuts, automatically tending toward the side of the criminal immigrant, because the border patrol is The Problem to the MM.

First, she wasn't transported to the U.S. border on a magic carpet.  She needed to get past the southern Mexican border to make her way north.  Second, she wasn't alone.  Third, either the group accompanying her attacked with "blunt" objects or merely (?) "rushed" the border agents. 

Fourth, her family back in Guatemala, a country long branded with the terms, illiterate, poverty-stricken and politically unstable, proclaimed proudly that she wanted to have a "better life" in the USA, where she expected to get a good job.

Of course, OF COURSE nobody in the media counters this with the truth -- a job for an illegal often takes away a job which should rightly be filled by an American worker.

Oh, and we have laws.  Remember laws?  The sold-out mainstream press doesn't care, entwined as they are with the very worst of the Democrat fringe.

Funny, too, isn't it, that groups rushing the border generally include an absence of Ph.D. or master's degree candidates?  If they harbor dreams of making America great again via their own efforts, why do they not bring the best of the best from their miserable countries?  The answer is obvious.

So the stalwart hate-America-first mainstream media jumps upon this story with all the compassion, tears and bleeding hearts it can muster from its well-worn progressive grab bag, making every word count in order to tighten the screws on overworked and vastly under-appreciated border patrol personnel.  We suspect that media executives temporarily made border control folk for a couple of weeks might be singing a different tune if their lives were put in danger every day.

Then there's the "immigration attorney" group, and wow, didn't they pick some goodies to interview, as they did everything but pee in their undies to emphasize what a tragedy this killing was.  Tragedy for whom?  The family, certainly, but I must confess, I'm not really spending a lot of time going about my day with tear-stained cheeks over a border invader.

Even Central America's collective nations of illiterates (why are we thinking MS-13?) looking for a "better life" as United States invaders surely know by now that we have laws and border-jumping is a criminal offense -- but these criminals continue not to care.

In that, I and they share some common ground:  They don't care if they violate our laws, and I don't care if they condemn their bodies to ammo-induced air-conditioning as they invade our country.  Gender and age are of no consequence.  Sorry faithful, sorry "immigration attorneys." 

Seems to me, considering the state of things, that one of the greatest honors in the country is to be placed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate list.  How does one sign up?

Yes, the whole world wants to come here, even the part that wants our population dead, and indeed much of the world has already wandered on in against our laws -- but humans are among the easiest creatures on the planet to produce, and if we aren't careful, offspring of "the family of man" will keep coming until no crisis can be averted.  It's not just criminality, it's numbers.  Big numbers.  Big, big illiterate numbers equipped mostly to wage crime, collect welfare, hook up and reproduce to multiply hell on earth.  Not precisely what the nation's founders had in mind.

Starbucks temporarily saves patrons money as 8,000 stores close down for an afternoon, teaching privilege for some, submission for others:  Look, anything, ANYTHING involving Sharpton and Holder isn't anything a human being should be exposed to, given a choice.  Unfortunately, Tuesday's "racial bias" classes were described as only the first step in god knows what future hell Starbucks and its willing race-champion accomplices have in mind.  We suggest that what Starbucks should have done is to close down for the afternoon and, instead of this solve-nothing bull crap almost guaranteed to do little but bolster hostility, invite its patrons to come in and discuss among themselves why they insist upon spending outrageous sums of money at the stores rather than brewing their own coffee at home.

Regrettably, it won't be Starbucks executives who will need to clean up after mentally ill folk pop on  in to poop in the sinks and generally filth-up restrooms now that everybody's welcome to hang out.  But, hey, it's all about d-i-v-e-r-s-i-t-y, another word for backwards discrimination and the application of muzzles, human-style.  We're sure that even ACLU communists are pleased as punch at this turn of events, as they sip their brews at Starbucks, carefully watching to make sure everything goes as planned.  Welcome to another nail in the coffin.