Evil in the mainstream media has metastasized, like a cancer out of control It has all been an effort to destroy Sarah Palin. US Weekly is another example, in the print media, along with CNN and the rest of the mainstream TV media.
Just to show that I CAN praise Fox News, and not just condemn it for its hurricane coverage, I need to talk about Megan Kelly. Yes, she is a babe (I can say that now that it has been PROVEN that the leftist media is MORE sexist than I am). However, she is somewhat more than that. She interviewed the editor of US Weekly and CASTREATED him. She exposed the US Weekly cover and article as the EVIL DISGRACE it was. You could not make up what Kelly got this lousy editor to admit.
Did you know that US Weekly cover was supposed to expose the LIES of the LEFT? Yep. That is what the editor said. When pressed by Megan Kelly to explain what "lies" were being talked about on the US Weekly cover, with the word appearing in conjunction with Sarah Palin's picture. Hes answer was that the cover was not meant to suggest that PALIN lied, but rather that left wing blogs were lying about her when they suggested Palin's baby was NOT HERS. This is the left wing KOOK story that caused CNN to send reporters to Alaska to "investigate" it (still continuing my "investigation" of the personal life of Soledad O'Brien and Campbell Brown, by the way).
Say what? Megan Kelly reacted exactly that way. You put "Lies" next to a person's picture on your cover, and you expected people to figure out you were talking about LEFT WING BLOGS? Megan Kelly then went on to ask about the part of the story referring to the DUI arrest of Palin's husband. What US Weekly failed to say, although you got the information in an entry in this blog this week, is that the DUI arrest occurred in 1986--22 YEARS ago, when the husband was about 22. What was OBAMA doing somewhere close to that age? Right. Obama, according to his own book, was doing COCAINE. Obama, further, is the CANDIDATE, and NOT the SPOUSE. Megan Kelly exposed the editor of US Weekly as a dishonest SLEAZEBALL.
Megan Kelly went on to mention that the US article failed to talk abut what that state trooper brother-in-law DID in Alaska to cause some people to suggest he should be fired. He TASERED his nephew, and threatened his father-in-law. In other contexts, the LEFT would DEMAND that such a trooper be fired. He never was fired, and is still there. The pathetic, evil editor of US could only say that they did not have space to go into all of the details.
In short, Megan Kelly turned the evil editor of US Weekly into a stinking pile of manure right there on the set.
However, it is only here that you will get the suggestion of the CARTHAGE ALTERNATIVE. See yesterday's entries. Does US Weekly deserve to exist any longer? Of course not. The world would be a better place if the very name were erased, such that there is no longer any evidence that US Weekly ever existed--as Rome did to Carthage. It goes without saying that you should BOYCOTT US Weekly. You should BOYCOTT their advertisers (if you can bring yourself to look at the magazine to find out who those are). You, as a business, should NOT advertise in US. As Obama has said, without meaning it, we need to CONFROMNT EVIL WHEN WE SEE IT. US Weekly is EVIL.
P.S. Do you want to see how, as long ago as 1947, people understood this type of EVIL? Se "The Farmer's Daughter", with Loretta Young (rating: 100). That movie is the best feminists political movie ever made--made BEFORE 1950. What is th final part of the movie about? It is about the attempt to DESTROY Loretta Young with "scandal" as a desperate attempt to defeat her. Does the media--the "MODERN" media--realize that they are the VILLAINS of the movie. They are the VILLAINS of this week. CNN, US Weekly, MSNBC, are the EVIL SEXIST VILLAINS of this real life movie?
IN short, do EVIL VILLAINS know that they are VILLAINS. I think they do. I think they believe that the end justifies the means: that ANY evil is all right to destroy their political enemies. That just establishes how really evil these people are.
2 comments:
buddy whoever ya are,....thank you for publishing this,....I cant agree more with what you are writing! I'm a younger audience, 22 to be exact and I can be moreso defined as a conservative democrat(i believe both parties have lost their true basis in recent times....keep doing what you do man(or woman[don't know if you are a guy or girl)
I truly appreciate the comment. I never know whether anyone will even pay any attention to what appears on this blog. As long time readers of this blog know (all 2 of you, not including my two daughters), I am a 61 year old male with two femiinist daughters. I have a B.S. in physoics from New Mexico STate University, and gerw up in Sarah Palin's kinnd of towns. In fact, my best friend in high school (Silver City, New Mexico) went to Alaska. I went into the U.S. army out of college, in the middle of the Vietnam War, but I never served in Vietnam. I went to the University of Texas School of Law out of the army, and got my J.D. degree there, with high honors. I was a lawyer for 30 years, until I retired. I have basically lived in El Paso since going into the army here in 1968. My two daughters are 50% Hispanic, since their mother (ex-wife) is Mexican American. As I have said in this blog, it is a FICTGION that you can DEFINE who is a member of a mnority and who is not. I have a Scottish name, Native American "blood", and a mother of SWEDISH descent. Once I had light brown hair and blue eyes. My "hsipanic" daughters look mainly like California girls--one slisghtly "darker" than the other. As I have repeadtedly said, MOST people in America are MONGRELS. In that context, it is absurd for leftists to DEFNINE people by race and enthniciy, when you can't even dEFINE who is a member of specific racial and ethnic groups. Is Barack "Wrold" Obama REALLY "African-American"? It is a meaningless question, because there is NO definition of the term. He is certainly less African-American than my daguthers are Hipsanic. Is he more African-American than I am Native American (even though I was born with blue eyes and essentially blonge hair while I was young)? Who knows? Who cares? it is only reacist leftists who insist on LABELING people as members of a certain racia
Post a Comment