CNN IS WATCHING! Trump wrestling CNN GIF CONFESSION!

So CNN went after the guy who made the Trump wrestling the CNN logo GIF. They tracked him down, found out his real name and sent him an email. The very next day, CNN hosts are on air brandishing the guy’s written confession, apology and requests for forgiveness.

In CNN’s own words, they have so far chosen not to make his personal details public “because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.”

But as CNN makes absolutely clear, if this supposedly free citizen does anything to upset CNN again, all bets are off:

“CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”

Check out this video. This is the actual confession of the Trump vs CNN GIF CREATOR! I swear… I didn’t manipulate this video in any way. Don’t come after me CNN!

Bored of phony political-speak yet?

g mfree

What a joke… Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland says: “Canada can no longer rely on Washington for global leadership…”

Truth: Canadian government has used the proximity of the US to avoid responsibility for protecting itself for decades. Now the Liberals have been put on notice by the US administration that reneging on its commitment to contributing its share to NATO will no longer be tolerated.

The Liberals are trying to spin their capitulation to US pressure into some kind of show of strength against an unreliable leadership role from the Americans.

And the Globe and Mail is doing everything it can to proliferate that Liberal propaganda.

Did Toronto Star deliberately downplay ISIS connection in Scarborough attack?

These days more than ever it seems your appreciation of reality will depend on which media you choose as your primary source of news and information.

Last Saturday, a self-proclaimed ISIS supporter allegedly screaming  ‘Allahu Akbar’ attacked people at a shopping mall in east end Toronto with a large knife she had concealed in her clothing and also with a golf club.

That is, unless you were reading the report of the incident on the Toronto Star web site. In which case, a random woman attacked people at the mall for no known reason whatsoever.

Here is how another local news outlet reported the incident, under the headline ‘Woman screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ charged in Toronto store attack: Sources’:

Toronto Sun: “Sources told the Toronto Sun that a woman, wearing an ISIS bandana, allegedly entered Cedarbrae Mall in Scarborough Saturday afternoon and then the Canadian Tire store, where she walked to the paint section.”

She allegedly ranted “Allahu Akbar” — God (Allah) is greater — before swinging a golf club at employees — at the same time of bloody terrorist attacks in London, sources said.”

Compare that with the report on the incident the Star provided under the caption ‘Toronto woman charged with assault at Scarborough mall’:

Toronto Star: “A Toronto woman is facing seven charges after two people were attacked Saturday in a Canadian Tire store at Cedarbrae Mall.”

The RCMP’s Toronto-based Integrated National Security Enforcement Team is working with Toronto police on the investigation, said Corp. Louise Savard.

Savard would not say why the INSET team is involved because the investigation is ongoing.

The specialized teams are aimed at tracking, deterring and disrupting terrorist groups or individuals who pose a threat to Canadian national security, the RCMP website says.”

Would not say why the anti-terrorist team is involved?

The incident was not reported in the media until Tuesday, when the alleged attacker appeared in court. Take a look at the stark differences in how the two Toronto news outlets reported the details of the woman’s bail hearing.

Toronto Sun: “Before Tuesday’s proceedings started, Justice of the Peace Alice Napier asked Rehab Dughmosh, 32, to identify herself in court ….. “ISIS — I pledge to the leader of the believers — Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” blurted the woman through an interpreter.

Al-Baghdadi is the leader of the Sunni militant jihadist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS) and the Levant.

Now compare that with how the Toronto Star reported the hearing:

Toronto Star: “When asked to identify herself for the record, she instead made reference in Arabic to “the leader of the believers,” according to the court’s translator.

The rest of her statements were one-word answers to questions asked by the judge.” 

 What is going on here? 

Keep in mind that this incident occurred on the same day as the London bridge attack and was reported Tuesday, the day international media was reporting that a man attacked police with a hammer while yelling ‘this is for Syria’ at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.

And yet the Toronto Star, Canada’s largest newspaper, appears to have gone out of its way to downplay the connection between this attack in Toronto and Islamic terrorism.

Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for the glaring differences between these two reports of the same disturbing incident. If so, it isn’t immediately obvious. Lacking such an explanation, it’s difficult not to see this as an example of a major mainstream media outlet deliberately constructing an inaccurate version of reality as opposed to objectively reporting the news.

You can read the original reports here:

Woman screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ charged in Toronto store attack: Sources; Toronto Sun

Toronto woman charged with assault at Scarborough mall; Toronto Star

 

 

‘Cultural appropriation’ propaganda pushed by mainstream media

Watch four of the most sanctimonious and obnoxious ‘progressives’ to ever walk the Earth lecture the ignorant masses about ‘cultural appropriation’ in this blatant piece of mainstream media propaganda. New Getugly video:

Traditional values at The Age protect feminist Clementine Ford from criticism.

So I recently had a comment rejected by the overseers of all things proper and decent at the online version of the Australian daily newspaper The Age.  And sure, it’s their publication and web site… and if they want to exclude my perspective from the public conversation,  it is certainly their prerogative. It’s not the first time and I think it unlikely it will be the last. Nevertheless,  it is interesting … and I think very revealing… to look at the kind of commentary from their own readers they would prefer be denied a platform.

My unwanted remarks were in response to a column by the reliably vexatious feminist activist Clementine Ford in which she went after the critics of media personality and activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied (‘The hypocrisy that lies behind the reaction to seven words from Yassmin Abdel-Magied’)  . Yassmin had caused quite a kerfuffle recently when she used Australia’s national day of remembrance – a day dedicated to those who fought in the world wars – to indulge in a little self-aggrandizing virtue signalling about refugees via Twitter.

I didn’t address the predictably overblown backlash to Yassmin’s deliberate provocation. Instead, my comments focused on what I consider to be Clementine’s unjustified assumption that she occupies the moral high-ground in her sanctimonious judgement of Yasmin’s critics.

Here is my comment that the gatekeepers of The Age’s forum deemed undeserving of inclusion in the public discussion and debate. In my post I referenced another column by Clementine which had been published just a few weeks prior:

This moral indignation and accusations of hypocrisy are a bit rich coming from someone who used her platform in this publication a few weeks ago to target specific high school boys in Sydney for public ridicule after they made a pro-feminist video.

Not only did this adult woman express her open contempt for these kids from Sydney Boys High School and a shameless resentment for the fact they received kudos for their efforts… she suggested that threatening women with rape is much more in their character than making well-intentioned videos with positive messages about women:

“It’s better than the rape threats and abuse that schoolboys often seem to throw about the internet … but is it really an amazing project deserving of heartfelt praise and gratitude?” (Clementine Ford, March 16 2017, The Age)

vvv

As you can see in the screenshot above, there is no reason given for the decision by the overseers of the discussion board at the Age to designate a comment unworthy of inclusion. A post deemed unacceptable just ends up in the ‘rejected’ section of your ‘Masthead’ page a day or two after being submitted (the snippet in the screenshot of the other rejected comment is one I submitted in response to the previous Clementine Ford column I referenced and which inspired the video below).

Absent any declared justification for rejection, I am left to conjecture about their reasons for the rebuff.

It can’t be my use of language, since my comment is nothing other than an accurate description of Clementine’s argument using her own words which I quoted verbatim. Which leaves only one plausible explanation as far as I can tell: The Age feels obliged to protect the poor darling from having the weaknesses and inconsistencies of her perspective exposed.

Such valour! What chivalry! This instinct to shield the little lady from genuine critique of her ideas is… dare I say it… practically traditional! Even suggestive of old timey patriarchal values!

The Age is happy to let Clementine dish it out… but apparently they know she can’t take it in return. Either that, or they are well aware that Clementine is a hypocrite, a phony, an intellectual lightweight… that she is the embodiment of every cruel, bigoted, self-serving and intolerant character flaw that she and the rest of the principle-‘fluid’, allegedly ‘progressive’- Left loudly proclaim to oppose.

Ultimately, it just comes down to a good business decision on behalf of the editorial staff at  The Age. They recognise that it is in their interest to protect their property from effective scrutiny and critique.

‘Rebuttals of the Week!’ #8: Stephen Colbert’s joke worse than homophobic… it wasn’t funny!

I have always been a big admirer of anyone who has  mastered the art of acerbic wit. The convergence of intelligence, sophistication, humour, critical insight, self-awareness, language skills and a precise comedic timing is damn impressive. People who wield this skill can expose bullshit, enlighten  and make you laugh out loud all at the same time…. often with a single,  impeccably well-observed and penetrating sentence.

The more famous maestros of the artform immediately spring to mind. Think of Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, Winston Churchill or William F. Buckley in the world of politics and commentary. Of course there is Johnny Carson and Woody Allen from mainstream and late-night entertainment. John Lennon was famous for it. There is the genius of the Monty Python crew with their deliciously merciless skewering of the absurdity of the human condition itself.

One of the wonderful things about this talent is that some of its most gifted exponents are completely unknown, otherwise average people from every walk of life and background you can imagine. I’ve met several of them in my time… my own dear ol’ dad was one of the all-time greats.

So when I see bland purveyors of  contemporary ‘infotainment’ lionised by the public as comedic geniuses for smugly purging themselves of whatever adolescent, puerile inanities  happen to emerge from the black hole of narcissism that is the wellspring of their particular brand of creativity…. it bugs me.

Which leads me to my “Rebuttal of the Week” . It is inspired by the recent brouhaha ( or was it a fracas?) over hi-larious conformist,  politically Leftist shill Stephen Colbert’s homo-erotic fantasy about  Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

My exchange with commentator Jane C (below), came from her response to Washington Post columnist Craig Konnoth’s weird, social justice warrior-esque, politically correct admonishment of Colbert. Like a lot of people, Konnoth found Colbert’s joke contemptible…. but not because it was infantile, vulgar, self-consciously mean spirited and unfunny.

cv(Read: Craig Konnoth: Sorry, progressives. Gay jokes are never OK, even when you’re bashing Trump)

No, for Konnoth, Colbert’s crime was that he transgressed a sacrosanct edict of the religion of ‘progressive’-Leftism: Thou shalt not make a “gay joke”. For it has been ordained that gay jokes are “never okay”. This makes Colbert guilty of the sin of “homophobia”. And, as Konnoth reminds us, homophobia is just another form of misogyny.

Yes folks, I kid you not. Konnoth actually makes that argument in his column. Let’s take a moment to fully absorb what is happening here: We have a major American mainstream news outlet, The Washington Post (and also Canada’s National Post by reprinting the piece) promoting the notion that a particularly boorish joke about falatio is proof of an irrational ‘fear‘ of homosexuals… which is really just an expression of hatred of women.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we should be mad at Stephen Colbert.

And they wonder why intelligent, reasonable adults are abandoning their lousy publications in droves.

The fact that morally superior ‘progressives’ like commentator Jane C. are fighting with morally superior ‘progressives’ like writer Craig Konnoth over who is most against homophobia and therefore the most morally superior is not only hilarious (ironically, unlike Colbert)…. it is yet another example of how the anti-rational, cognitively self-annihilating ideological foundation of the ‘progressive’-Left is causing the whole thing to collapse in upon itself ( see Progressive Left is Eating Itself Alive! ).

Here is Jane’s comment and my ‘Rebuttal of the Week!’:

Jane C: It’s a BRILLIANT monologue – super funny and it did exactly what he intended to – piss off the conservatives and those who are actually homophobic and thought that gay jokes are not ok, so here’s looking at you, writer of this article.

Going to Getugly  Going to Getugly:  Unfortunately Jane, we live in an era in which people’s context for what constitutes the zenith of wit and sophisticated late night TV humour stretches all the way back to the early days of Jimmy Kimmel.

That’s the only plausible explanation for how anyone could possibly mistake Colbert’s spewing of adolescent cheap shots designed to pander to the mundane, predictable prejudices of his comfortable, liberal, middle class audience as somehow worthy of the evaluation of “BRILLIANT”.

If you want to consider yourself some kind of aficionado of comedy… you may want to extend your exposure to the genre beyond the immediate era. If you do, you will notice that until very recently, comedy that was recognized as ‘BRILLIANT’ actually challenged and unsettled the assumptions of the comfortable, status-quo class. Now, it panders to it.

And even the most mainstream late night television hosts and their audiences could once distinguish between acerbic wit and infantile, crude vindictiveness.

Based on your comments, you clearly represent a distinct changing of the guard in this respect.