OK, the excitement is over at
Burger King, where I have just witnessed a black woman trash the place, dumping
anything that was dumpable on the floor, apparently because she felt that one
of the employees had “slighted” her because of her race and her claimed sexual
orientation. The police were called, but she will be long gone by the time they
show-up. The perpetrator has promised, however, that she will be back tomorrow
to visit more mayhem on the establishment.
Earlier in the day Seattle mayor Ed
Murray was a guest on the local ESPN affiliate’s “Brock and Salk” radio show,
to talk about the Chris Hansen arena proposal—or rather, not talk about it. I
didn’t expect much; after all, this strictly vanilla personality was elected
because it was believed he had progressive “cred” based on his particular “orientation,”
and Seattle wants to maintain its progressive “rep” by electing such a person.
Isn’t that the truth, Seattle? And isn’t
it another truth that when it comes to the nitty-gritty, many people who claim to be “progressive”
are not that at all, but self-obsessed divas? Murray isn’t really “progressive”
at all from what I can tell; in fact, Murray is something of a coward. When it
comes right down to it, with all the power and influence of the executive, he
hasn’t exactly used it to advance anything that one would mistake as “progressive.”
He has been a coward in the face of NIMBY’s and developers who have either
stonewalled or opposed affordable and low-income housing in Seattle, as well as
on the homeless issue. The most vulnerable people in his city have no friend they
can count on in Murray, who seems more interested in maintaining his favorable poll numbers among the better-off in the city.
Listening to Murray not talk
about the Hansen proposal in that dull, lifeless tone of the non-believer (he
called himself an “agnostic” on sports), one reads between the lines that
Murray harbors a personal dislike for Hansen, and opposes any “deal” that the
city doesn’t have complete control of and take all the credit for. The problem,
of course, is that there is no “deal” outside of Hansen’s, and Murray’s claims that
he wants to be the mayor who brings the NBA back to Seattle is as hollow as his
“concern” for the poor and the homeless.
But while the mayor of Seattle
barely registers on the pulse meter, the same cannot be said about the Hillary
Clinton campaign’s outrage at that anyone would dare expose further the
corruption of the “chosen” one. Clinton is “blasting” the “double standard” of
FBI director James Comey’s re-opening the investigation into her email
illegalities, while “overlooking” Russia’s “interference” on Donald Trump’s “behalf.”
Comey is being accused of violating the Hatch Act, the intent of which is the
prevention of undo “influence” by a government official into an election. But the
only “explosive” thing about any of this is the desperation of Clinton in her
attempts to shoo-away the flock of misdeeds that are coming home to roost—and no
one is even talking about her even worse past indiscretions. Did the Russians
brainwash Clinton into a 40-year career of corruption and perjury? Or is her “outrage”
more a product of hysterical indignation that even just a tiny crumb of truth
is coming out now?
Meanwhile, it seems that every
day WikiLeaks reveals yet more evidence of the corruption of Clinton and her
disciples. I find it laughable that the Clinton News Network would be “uncomfortable”
when after employing interim Democratic National Committee chairperson and
close Clinton confidant Donna Brazile as a “contributor,” it was revealed that she had passed on
televised debate questions to the Clinton primary campaign back in March during
a critical period for Bernie Sanders’ candidacy; no wonder Clinton responded to
many questions as if she already had the answers burned to memory.
I have got to believe that many
voters are becoming disillusioned with Clinton’s efforts to drown out any
questions or evidence against her suitability to be president. Every time new
evidence emerges about some new corruption—and this has been an ongoing “process”
for some time now—we don’t get the admissions of “mistakes” from Clinton, but more
lies, like this:
“I am sure a lot of you may be
asking what this email business is about and why in the world the FBI would
decide to jump into an election without any evidence and it’s a good a question.
By all mean they should look at [the emails] and I am sure they will reach the
same conclusion as when they looked at my emails: there is no case.”
The statement just drips with
mendacity. She said something similar before the release of the FBI report
after the Democratic Convention, and many in the media noted that the report
did not “exonerate” Clinton of wrong-doing as she claimed, or of making false
statements. No, the FBI is not “jumping into an election without any evidence”;
it just found more evidence not previously known that a close Clinton aid had potentially
sensitive State Department business illegally stored on a personal computer
shared with her husband. How did that happen? And no, the FBI report did not
say there was “no case” against Clinton, only that there was a great deal of
evidence of willful disregard with the communication of classified information,
and that the FBI could not make a case against Clinton because everyone in the “know”
pleaded the Fifth rather than testify against her.
Trump’s hubris may be offensive to some people, but his
inability to conceal what is on his mind is at least “different” from what we
usually hear from politicians these days. From Clinton, all we hear is the
hot-air of counter-accusations against those who just want voters to know the
truth—and the truth has always been that bogeyman the Clintons most fear.
No comments:
Post a Comment