Yeah, so I’m looking a teensy bit like the Michelin (wo-) Man but I’m warm. Oh, and for once my hands aren’t cold enough to chill a magnum of Champagne. I can just put one of those on a shelf in the garage for a couple of hours!
A strange thought came into mind over the weekend…I know, shocking, right? Then I saw the American Thinker article last night.
Check it out HERE on my YouTube channel.
Dear Common Sense: Please come home. Signed, America
So I’m hetero-. Does that mean I’m OK with men and women “having-it their way” in public? Hell, no. (Because I’m an old-fogey, too.) But is asking for such decorum really asking for the moon? Why can’t it be, as progressives/statists often say, “…simply ‘common sense’?” (They have to add “legislation” since they can’t persuade, they must rule.)
My beef with PBS’ Downton Abbey & Grantchester last evening concerns their propagandizing, which is something much more insidious than graphic sexuality.
I say, Watson, there’s something gamey afoot.
If the evening of February 8th, 2015 is any indication, I’ve missed nothing save for the same-old same-old progressive preaching by leaving network TV unwatched for months…
Somehow PBS ended up on the screen last night after having watched a couple of satirical YouTube channels’ takes on a movie we’d watched Friday (“The Maze Runner”). “Downton Abbey” was in full swing and so I stayed seated and watched, wondering if I’d be able to “follow” – I’ve only ever watched a handful of (old) episodes and that was a few months back during a fundraising marathon (taxpayers’ involuntary-servitude to PB$ apparently never being sufficient). I went along happily, going so far as to pause it in order to brew a “cuppa;” my sipping along-with seemed to add to the experience that first time.
All of a sudden there was a VAMPIRE in the abbey?
The dude named Thomas – who got fired or was about to (in those earlier episodes) but groveled and got his job back (I think) – looked like he could keel over at any minute. I fully expected him to bare his canines and go for someone’s neck, poor man. But no, D.A. writers hadn’t jumped that timeworn plot-shark (yet).
Lo and behold I learn by episode’s end he’s been trying, “to be like every other man” which I finally gathered meant (shudder) be a Heterosexual. We all grieved with him for sure when we found out he’d gotten ripped-off royally in The City for bogus electro-treatments with to-go treatment syringes (of contaminated water (?) or some other benign liquid) which had unsurprisingly made him sick. But for me the grief went deeper: I’d just lost a story full of characters and places I thought I might enjoy visiting now and again…all because PBS had to inject (pun) another progressive cause du jour. Now if the bogus “treatments” were in fact a cause of much suffering at that time in the early 20th century, then fine, but how much more suffering took place for soldiers during (and the after effects of) WWI did D.A. fail to illustrate? I’ll likely never know.
Fast forward to Grantchester…same story, different war (i.e. different costumes)
Well, I still had some tea left to sip, so I stuck with PBS and a “Mystery” story I was unfamiliar with. I’m not sure how far into the hour I got before it became clear that the mystery was actually several, rolled into one episode:
- If this is The Patriarchy, why can’t Men do Whatever They Want?
- How Did Homosexuality Survive all the way to the mid-20th Century?
- Does an Investigator who works Feverishly to Stamp-out Sodomy mean He’s Denying His Own Homosexuality just as feverishly?
Now, I don’t have homophobia any more than you actually have hoplophobia
So before you jump the homophobic-shark consider my basic beef here as Common Decency vs. PBS-Preaching. I can prove you’re not Afraid of Guns in just a few sentences and ditto for my non-existant Homophobia:
You: probably don’t think twice when a cop wearing a gun-on-her-hip walks up behind you in the Starbuck’s line. You don’t freak-out and worry not if, but, when she’ll start randomly shooting patrons. But I’m betting if you’re outside of what I’ll call the Self-Defense Community and your average civilian Jane Doe did the very same thing as the Lady-Cop…you’d stiffen up, maybe even leave the store, likely call 9-1-1 to report the woman. Congratulations. You aren’t a hoplophobe; you’re a statist. (People in special state-sanctioned uniforms can liberally wield firearms, with your blessing and/or Thank-you.)
Me (actually a few short paragraphs): While I won’t leave an establishment when I realize I’m in the vicinity of folks who clearly transmit their homosexuality (and if you’re denying blatant signals exist you are acting the irrational fool), neither is my gut reaction to call 9-1-1 and report a potential threat to my Heterosexual Orientation.
You probably condone the thugs who rob me to fund PBS, but I will protest…
Know this…if or when someone or some group’s “proclivities” require my sacrifice, a.k.a. my time or my financing (which Progressive/Feminist-Law does) or threaten my well-being (which Islamic teachings & Law do) I’ll oppose them to my last breath; otherwise I’m A-OK with them. I only ask one simple thing: they don’t shove their Private-Practices (i.e. sex) in my face; keep it private. If they get sick from it or pregnant, consider this motto:
“You chose to play; you oughta pay.” (I know it doesn’t work this way; I do not voluntarily pay; we are forced to be all of “our brother’s keepers” hence the “oughta.” The U.S.A. is under all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto to varying degrees.)
If I could get back the money stolen from me to fund PB$ I’d take you target shooting for a day.
Once upon a time Obama declared he’d have the most transparent administration, evvah. But as the song goes, Seasons change, people change…
But if the opacity-of-Obama needs proving again: within 30 days (!) 100,000’s of Americans signed one of BHO’s We the People petitions asking for the Muslim Brotherhood to be classified as a Terrorist Organization; the O-bomb and his peeps took their sweet time – more than a year – to respond to These People…with a resounding, “NO!” Though Egypt itself considers them just that bad.
By the way, this is what college DIVERSITY is all about apparently; you know, embracing various cultures and traditions and other forms of enrichment…the “Brotherhood’s” motto, according to Breitbart.com is pretty diverse, if not very open-minded:
“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar!” [Incoming!]
So I guess now it makes perfect sense that BHO’s State Department would lend them a fireplace.
Jen Psaki’s Q & A comments (published on the 29th from the U.S. Department of State’s website, and beginning about 2/3’s down the page) indicate such nonchalance about these people in-her-midst as to be frightening. Oh, and note her ditzy, “I believe this is the 25th…” further down.
MS. PSAKI: You want to go to Egypt?
QUESTION: Egypt. Yes, please.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Members of Muslim Brothers were in town, and few days ago they met – had meetings in this building. Do you have any like – any details about the meeting, the nature of the meeting, the purpose of the meeting, and whom they met?
MS. PSAKI: Well, State Department officials meet – recently met with a group of visiting Egyptian former parliamentarians whose visit to the United States was organized and funded by Georgetown University. Such meetings are fairly routine at the State Department where we regularly meet with political party leaders from across the world. The Georgetown group included former members of the Freedom and Justice Party, among others. So this was a meeting – we meet on a regular basis with a range of groups, and obviously, as I mentioned, this was a group sponsored by Georgetown.
The meeting was attended by a deputy assistant secretary for democracy, human rights, and labor, and other State Department officials.
QUESTION: The reason I’m asking: because you said Georgetown University, because they are in town and they were talking about – first, they are representing alternative parliament whatever, and beside that they were talking about political solution and being representative of an alternative government for Egypt. Do you have anything to say about that?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t. This was a diverse group of former parliamentarians. I don’t think I have much more than I just offered.
QUESTION: So let me complete this —
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: — because the last 48 hours you were silent about these Georgetown visitors.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I was asked about it, so hence I was silent.
QUESTION: No, I mean, you were asked two days ago, I mean, and then we tried to ask you —
MS. PSAKI: And I think I said I need to look into more details.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. That’s hardly silent, but go ahead.
QUESTION: So I’m trying to adjust to – explain myself anyway.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: So in the last 48 hours, just for your information, the tweetosphere, whatever you can call it, was full of members of this Georgetown visitors, saying what they did and what they didn’t do in this town and in this building in particular, saying that it’s a kind of like a – we said our word and we achieved our goals. Are – your team are following what’s going on this town or it’s you don’t care about what they are saying about their meetings here?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I have to say there are dozens if not hundreds of meetings that take place in this building every single day. We don’t announce every meeting. That’s a part of our efforts and engagement as diplomats. So I don’t think it’s more complicated than that.
QUESTION: I’m – can I just – I understand completely what you are saying and —
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: — we all miss kind of meetings. The only thing I am trying to figure out: If two people meet each other and one person is like give his narrative, that’s why I’m asking your narrative was important to say especially in yesterday in Egypt and people asking the embassy people and the embassy was saying we are still waiting for Washington to talk about it.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I just gave you all the details I have. Again, I think – and it takes a little bit of the mystery out of it. This was a group that was organized and funded by Georgetown. It was a diverse group. It had some former members of the Freedom and Justice Party – they’re former parliamentarians. I think we regularly meet with groups like this, so hopefully you can go back and report and defuse some of the confusion.
QUESTION: All right. Since I’m wearing a Georgetown scarf, are you suggesting that the criticism that has been lobbed at this building from frequent critics of the Administration should be directed at my alma mater?
MS. PSAKI: No, not at all, actually. I was suggesting that this was a group sponsored by a well-respected national university, Matt, and it was a diverse group and something —
MS. PSAKI: — I’m sure they do regularly, and we regularly meet with these groups.
QUESTION: And when they – in this meeting that they had, that a semi-senior official attended, did they discuss overthrowing the – President Morsy? [The president is actually Abdel Fattah el-Sisi]
MS. PSAKI: No, that was not part of the discussion.
QUESTION: Okay. And then you also said that it was a diverse group, with former MPs and also, you said, former member of the Freedom and Justice Party. They are no long members of the Freedom and Justice Party?
MS. PSAKI: My understanding is they’re former members.
QUESTION: Because the party was outlawed, or – why just former members?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have more details on the group than what I’ve offered.
QUESTION: And who else – who else was in it, then?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have more of a description, Matt.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) can we move to —
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Why don’t we finish Egypt? Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, just I’m trying to follow up —
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: — because the question is: You said that they don’t discuss overthrowing it, or whatever. But they – this is what somehow their message was in this town or other places – I mean, in this town especially, in National Press Club, in other places.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I haven’t looked —
QUESTION: I know that you are not supposed to censor or whatever —
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me – then let me just answer your question. I’m sure they had a broad schedule while they were in Washington. I would refer you to them and others for what their schedule included. This was a regular meeting that we have with a range of groups. It wasn’t more complex; it wasn’t a discussion, a negotiation; it was a courtesy meeting, and I would leave it at that.
QUESTION: Can we go to Yemen?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
An example of what the “tweetosphere” was all atwitter over…
…comes from the closing paragraphs of a BBC article, from 30 jan 2015:
The MB said it “unequivocally” condemned “all acts of violence” on its Twitter account.
“Our deepest condolences to the families of the deceased soldiers in Sinai and the Egyptian people,” it said.
Despite this official stance, some comments on social media linked the Sinai attack to a statement issued by the MB on 27 January, in which the group called its supporters to
“get ready for Jihad.”
“Everyone should understand that we are about to start a new phase, in which we are mobilising all our powers and recalling the meanings of Jihad,” the statement said.
“We are getting ready ourselves along with our wives, sons, daughters and everyone who follows our steps for a long path of relentless Jihad,
…in which we aim for the honourable status of martyrs.”
There is no evidence of a direct link between the MB and the Sinai Province group (formerly known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis) that claimed responsibility for the attack.
Sinai Province claimed responsibility for the attacks through its official Twitter account.
My latest video is a brief analysis of this article:
all because of this Guardian article.
Contrary to what slate.com and most other leftists would like you to believe…
“Good Guys with Guns” is not a myth.
Credit goes to the NRA and their monthly magazine feature, “The Armed Citizen” for my new YT feature (1st episode HERE) where I’ll share news stories of actual people stopping or scaring-away the bad guys with a personal firearm. Typically without firing a shot.