So Let Me Get This Straight…

There’s no “evidence” that Trump’s “wires” were “tapped”; he was crazy to make such an accusation our Media/Democrat Industrial Complex tells us.

But, somehow, “U.S. officials” are hinting (actually illegally leaking) that they may have the goods backing up their fake story of “collusion” between Donald Trump and Russians. In fact, FBI Director James “The Kingmaker” Comey, has indicated that the Trump campaign has been surveiled since last summer.

Isn’t wiretapping one of the chief instruments of surveillance, especially long-term? And where is all the content for all these leaks coming from? It certainly sounds like phone conversation transcriptions. How were they obtained if not by wiretaps? Telepathy?

Of course there is the inconvenient fact that apparently at least one computer in the Trump Tower was being monitored by authorities. And what about news stories concerning FISA warrants aimed at Trump or at people near him?

Am I the only one finding it odd that Trump is portrayed as delusional or paranoid for thinking that someone has been watching him and maybe listening in yet, at the very same time, often in the next media story, they provide some kind of vague hint that authorities have evidence from surveillance that Trump and his campaign might be guilty of “collusion.”

They run these stories with a straight face and without the slightest awareness of the inherent conflicts of their stories – one or the other of these stories could be true but not both. Or they are aware of these conflicts and are just willing to blatantly lie while doing the dirty work of taking Trump down?

I’m entering a new phrase into the lexicon – media as warfare by other means. That is what we are experiencing.

Misunderestimating the Enemy

Many conservatives are ecstatic that Donald Trump consistently outplays the socialist party (i.e. the Democrats) and their media skirmishers.

They applauded his assertion that Obama had “tapped his wires,” many claiming this rendered the “Trump is a Putin puppet” and “Russia hacked the election” memes moot.

Just this week there’s talk that Rachel Madcow’s “exposure” of Trump’s tax returns from 2005 now washes the “Trump & Taxes” meme away because the returns don’t show anything negative (begging the question why Madcow breathlessly pimped these things — did she not understand them? Very possibly.) Some have even suggested that Trump himself may have done it just to neutralize the issue.

The problem with these angles is that they rely on the public comprehending the points and following the argument. In other words, it relies on a “rationality.”

This works fine on conservative websites with knowledgeable readers but your average person, reliant on getting the information from, or rather filtered by, the lamestream media, the propaganda arm of the socialist party.

It also relies on the dubious point that the media is rational and cannot ignore particular details of the story.

If you don’t think the media can peddle two conflicting narratives at the same time, you haven’t been paying attention for the last few decades. The Democrat-Media Complex can easily trot out Trump=Russian Puppet narrative while burying or soft-peddling Obama administration wiretapping.I hear it all the time.

Didn’t you notice how the media managed to whitewash the Clinton email scandal — rarely, if ever, mentioning felonies, FOIA, Hillary’s endless contradictions and changing story, and more? How many major media stories did you see on the Clinton Foundation’s various scams? That number would be zero…

Remember the whole Scooter Libby farce?Reported from Day One exactly as the Democratic Party fed it to the media.

No, my friends, sadly, festering Black Plague stories can easily be buried by the MSM.

It is precisely because this threatens liberal icons and shibboleths that these stories are distorted or selectively reported.

What the public is hearing is Trump=Russian Puppet, Election=Hacked by Russia because that’s what they are being told by the media. The propagandists are not obligated to report the truth or facts that they don’t like. This morning on WTOP they easily skipped that the tax returns did not have any “gotchas” in it. They quickly and seamlessly focused on points such as Trump hasn’t released all of his returns and winked that there must be bad things in those others; these returns had to be “leaked“ (without even exploring on the illegality of such an act); and, everyone knows, that the public has demanded that Trump release his tax returns but he hasn’t.

WTOP featured some reporter from CBS News Radio who effortlessly danced around the facts and hammered on the “politics” of the issue, which he was confident were a loser for Trump. Trump is always a loser in the eyes of the media folks.

The end result is that much of the public, catching bits and pieces of a complicated issue, imbibes Trump & Taxes=Bad. They really don’t know why it’s bad, it just is because it was reported as so.

This is how the “free press” is working these days.

Similarly, over the weekend and this week was the “U.S. Attorneys” story. Talk about fake news.

WTOP radio giddily repeated the talking points handed out by the Democrats, with breathless whining that several of these attorneys were caught off-guard and were frantically trying to get their subordinates up to speed on cases (Um, WTOP, it is those lower level attorneys who are actually up to speed since they do the work). It was only the last sentence wherein the newsreader quietly mentioned that the replacement of U.S. Attorneys by incoming administrations wasn’t unusual.

So the media is in the job of reporting things that are not unusual, WTOP?

But at least WTOP mentioned the truth, most others left the typical citizen completely in the dark and thinking that the outrageous Trump had perpetuated another outrageous thing (because that’s what he does), maybe even another “Saturday Night Massacre.” That’s a bad thing.

Then there was the absurdity of someone like Preet Bharara and several other Obama admin leftovers implying they didn’t have to resign their posts, as if those jobs belonged to them for as long as they wanted them. That they served at the pleasure of the president was rarely ever pointed out and never the subject of any MSM treatment of the story.

Were these angles used when the incoming Obama administration began removing Bush-apppointed U.S. Attorneys? No. The last timed those angles were explored was when the incoming Bush administration began relieving Clinton holdovers. This is only a story when it’s a Republican administration.

Hey, MSM how about this story angle, “Power-Crazed Political Appointees From Previous Administration Refuse to Leave Offices”? It’s more accurate than what you went with.

If the media had any decency, ethics or shame they’d hang their heads in shame.

But that’s not the goal of this exercise in disinformation. The goal: the public hears Trump & U.S Attorneys=Bad.

Mission accomplished.

As we have learned time and time again, when it comes to the media and the socialist-controlled public culture facts don’t matter.

The Clintons have painfully taught us on numerous occasions — perception is all. Libtards understand this, conservatives by and large still don’t. They are too busy trying to win a debate with the facts and rationality, failing to understand that the media will distort the debate, pluck emotional strings, spin it in the Democrats’ favor and that is all most people will ever see.

State Street Hypocrites

The Wall Street Journal recently reported in one of those typical feel-good-right-side-of-history stories, written almost always by its female reporters, that financial firm State Street, based in, where else, Boston, is insisting that companies it does business with put more women on those company’s boards and that it would vote against board members who were insufficiently enthusiastic with such causes.

It’s giving companies a year to comply. Or else, I guess.

The CEO of State Street Global Advisors, one Ronald O’Hanley, not a woman, said, oddly,“If someone could convince us that the absence of diversity or gender diversity is not a problem, we’re leaving that open. Will they? I doubt it.”

So, Ronnie, would that little bit of business philosophy include State Street Global Advisors own “Leadership Team”? It’s a regular Boys Club — 23 men to 5 women. It’s parent company, State Street, features 62 men and 18 women in its “Leadership Team.”

Perhaps some of those chaps will be leaving and be replaced by someone with her sex organs on the inside? (An odd way to measure qualifications for employment in a financial company.)

No?

Hhhhmmmmm, the classic liberal behavior, do as I say not as I do; AKA hypocrisy.

What’s changing, increasingly, is that the liberals that have take over so much of American business are willing to employ those businesses as weapons against other Americans. They are also abandoning their fiduciary duties in service of liberalism, fascism and socialism.

But back to that March 7 story. It deploys the usual weepy statistics about the lack of women on boards and how those companies with women do so much better than the small handful that don’t have any; or at least they did several years ago when the “study” conducted by State Street (surprise!) said so.

The story has one last kiss — a picture of a Dega-esque statue that State Street planned to place in front of the famous Wall Street bulls statue. I gather she’s supposed to face them like that lone Chinese man faced the tanks in Tiananmen Square. Subtlety isn’t exactly a liberal specialty.

Historical accuracy isn’t one either. But then history doesn’t serve as history for history’s sake or to be learned from in the eyes of the liberal but rather slaved to the propaganda mission and if it has to be plasticized and recast into different forms as if it were Play-Doh, then so be it; it served its purpose.

Say It Ain’t So, Jean-Luc!

This story is just depressing. It’s really sad that Patrick Stewart wants to become and American citizen to America to disrupt it and hate… Why should he be let in with that attitude?

Why can’t he be a builder, not a breaker?

It’s so childish. It’s part of the liberal mentality.

International Without a Woman Day or Whatever…

Yet another shockingly dumb “movement” thing from liberals. And of course it is adopted and whitewashed by politicians, news media and other cultural arbiters as harmless as Arbor Day (but also incredibly important too!!!!).

Believe it or not, a local school system, City of Alexandria (Va.), is giving the students the day off.

Not surprisingly, either, The U.N. is all for it and involved, along with many useless parasite NGOs.

Being left out of all this by our cultural commissars are the hardcore left organizers. Gee, I wonder why?

Lessee, a convicted Palestinian terrorist and the ubiquitous human communist/racist cancer, Angela Davis are involved. And somehow our watchdog media missed this.

Eh, maybe not. Most of them like Angie Davis and they are cool with Palestinian terrorists too (so long as they concentrate on killing Israelis).

Check out these exposés on the march/day leaders from the New York Post, Legal Insurrection, Blue Lives Matter and Front Page.

Hey, how about a Day Without Men? You know, no cops (the serious ones, ya’ know); no firemen (the serious ones, ya’ know); no military (the serious ones, ya’ know); no repairmen; no contractors; no serious outdoor laborers; a serious curtailment of business; etc.

No, you say? Yeah, the idea is absurd. Most men don’t play such nonsense…

Jane Fonda: I’m a Victim, Too!

This interview, “Me, Jane,” stinks and wreaks of attention-seeking. Jane Fonda obviously feels she’s being left behind in the all-consuming race for attention that governs most actors.

It’s also part of a seemingly new phenomenon, victimism. Certainly it’s never been as strong as it is now — the desire by so many to be seen as victims. In this case we have a highly successful, world famous, high-profile, award-winning multimillionaire yearning to be seen as a victim.

A few points.

Fonda says, “It took me 60 years to learn how to say no,” and portrays herself as some kind naive hayseed. She seems to have confused herself with young Cat Ballou.

Does anybody believe that Fonda has been a shrinking violet her whole life? She grew up in Hollywood, the daughter of Hollywood royalty. Her brother was Peter Fonda, who was on the cutting edge of every hippy hipster experimental lifestyle movement that came down the pike.

She claims she discovered feminism after seeing “The Vagina Monologues,” which debuted in 1996.

Okay, here you already know we’re being snowed. Jane Fonda was already active in feminism in the 1970s. The interviewer doesn’t bring this up.

“The men in my life were wonderful, but victims of a [patriarchal] belief system,” she says.

Would that include Henry Fonda, darling of classic America Hollywood liberalism?; Peter Fonda (see above)?; Free Love playboy Roger Vadim?; or Commie pinko icon Tom Hayden? That’s a pretty broad leftwing spectrum of male chauvinist pigs ya’ got there, Janie.

She worries that the Hollywood Blacklist is coming back because of so many stars speaking out (from the left). She means the one against liberals not the one that the liberals, who control Hollywood, have against conservatives.

The poor thing relates that she recently went to protest a pipeline in Alberta, Canada, and the locals at the airport had the nerve to tell her to go home, they didn’t want her around. She whimpers that so many people disagree with her and they (unjustly) complain that she’s a spoiled, ignorant, elite brat. She apparently says this with a straight face.

Poor, Jane, the world just doesn’t understand how lucky it is to have her speaking out. Snap to it, people, Janie has places to be, people to meet, clothes to model, glamor to bask in. What do you have, peasant!?! Learn your place!

She worries that the health care “infrastructure” will collapse when Planned Parenthood is defunded. You see, so many women get their health care from PP, according to Jane.

Uh, no they don’t. It’s an abortion mill franchise almost exclusively. That’s like describing “Hour Eyes” as a full service medical establishment.

Of course a Hollywood woman who got her start playing on her looks now complains that women are judged on their looks and that’s not fair to older women, which said complainer has become. She then leaps eagerly into a photo shoot to demonstrate what a hot MILF she is.

And people wonder why liberals so often come across as airheads.

Much of the interview is little more than a mutual tongue bath between Fonda and “activist and actress,” typically narcissistic Millennial Brie Larsen (who constantly inserts herself into the interview – Brie, honey, you’re dimwitted doll, but this isn’t about you.).

Jane regales us with the numerous times that she stood up to her “boss.”

When did Jane Fonda ever have a “boss”? When she was known as the daughter of Hollywood power Henry Fonda? Not bloody likely. Who’s going to cross Henry Fonda? When she was a producer, award-winning actress and bankable star in the 1970s-80s? Who was going to commit occupational suicide battling her? When she was Tom Hayden’s running buddy trying to pull the Democratic Party to the left and revolutionize America? Good luck getting any invites to Hollywood’s coolest parties. When she was “feeling the burn”? At the time she was one of the most recognizable and influential celebrities on the planet.

The biggest bombshell here is the claim to have been raped and sexually abused. She doesn’t name names and is quite coy on that, simply stating it as if noting she was on a plane few times. It has a “me too,” feeling about it. As if no one would ever admit they hadn’t been on an airplane, how gauche.

Sexually abused? I’m a bit skeptical but maybe when she was very young; before she was “liberated.” A lot of that free love and Hollywood swinging back in the 1960s and 1970s is now considered “abuse.” (Remember how these very same people accused people who behaved themselves back then of being squares and uncool, now they have flipped their viewpoint but refuse to acknowledge that the uncool squares back then were really right! Ah, being a liberal means never having to say you were wrong!)

Who knows, maybe she’s referring to liberal icon Tom Hayden or superswinger Roger Vadim? Both are now conveniently dead as are all those patriarchal producers, directors and male co-stars. I’m assuming she’s referring exclusively to men…

Jane obviously doesn’t want these young women hogging all the attention with their rape and sexual abuse stories. Those founding mothers of feminism are showing the young whippersnappers that they can match them for victimization. In fact, they were victims before these neophyte feminist small fry were glints in the eye of their mothers’ turkey basters… Double in fact, they practically invented victimization.

 

Isn’t It Funny?

Isn’t it funny that socialists always insist that they are doing whatever it is they are doing for the benefit of the poor. Yet in case after case it is the poor that ultimately suffer the most under socialist leadership?

Pick a country, any country… Venezuela is a good recent example. They are practically starving to death and they spend most of their day trying to find food.

And to think of it Obama praised the genius behind the decline, Hugo Chavez, “Mi amigo…” And, of course, Bernie Sanders loves what Venezuela’s recent leadership has done with the place.

Because someone had to say it