It’s both amazing and incredibly sad how so many people are so easily influenced by celebrities, who they don’t know and will never meet, but read about or see on a screen and think they know all about. Take the case of renowned, Godless, bisexual, man-stealer and actress Angelina Jolie, a reclusive woman “raising” 6 kids while unmarried to fellow actor Brad Pitt.
This week Jolie suddenly came down from the heavens and blessed the unwashed masses with an announcement (in the form of a New York Times op-ed, of course) stating that she had recently undergone a double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery over a period of three months, after her doctor told her that if she didn’t do so she could increase the risks of getting cancer.
Like night follows day, Jolie was quickly given the “hero” treatment for her “courage” by a mainstream, liberal press that worships Godless celebrities who promote their morally bankrupt agenda…nevermind the facts.
Like Jolie, a multimillionaire, failing to mention the huge costs (more than $50,000 and most health insurance plans don’t cover double mastectomies) of such an operation.
Or the fact that more than 99% of women do not have BRCA1, the type of gene discovered in Jolie that raises the risk of breast cancer which led to the actress making the “courageous” decision to have a preventive mastectomy in the first place.
Despite these facts, million of women everywhere are thankful that Jolie (who in the past has been given “sainthood” status by the press for her past humanitarian efforts) will get to live longer. Most of these naive women will also make the idiot choice to pursue unnecessary medical attention for something they don’t need all because a rich celebrity (along with the mainstream press) gave them the thumbs up to do so.
By Mr. Grey Ghost
at 15 May, 2013, 11:34 pm
The last several days have been taxing for many members of the
political press. The burst of scandals surrounding the conduct of the
White House on a variety of fronts have forced the media to turn a
critical eye towards the president. Some prominent conservative
commentators have warned that
this behavioral aberration by much of the establishment media cannot
last. They have said that even the slightest overstep by Republicans in
response to the White House’s scandals would give the press and excuse
to revert to their familiar and satisfying focus on the GOP’s
pathological mistrust of President Barack Obama and his
policies. While the press does not yet have an overwhelming amount of
material to support this effort, they have begun to settle back into
that comfortable place.
“The IRS has admitted to targeting conservatives, even if the White
House continues to be stuck on the word ‘if,’” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) at a Wednesday news conference. “Now my question isn’t about who’s going to resign. My question is: Who’s going to jail over this scandal?”
Sure, it’s not much to go on, but this undoubtedly a hyperbolic
reaction – at least, at this stage — to the news that the Internal
Revenue Service systematically targeted conservative groups with onerous
and burdensome information requests which forced some to abandon their
effort to secure tax-exempt status has given the press a reason to focus
once again on Republicans.
With utter predictability, the media sprang into action with a righteous scolding.
“Now you’re hearing even further politicization of something that may not be so political,” declared CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield.
“When you start hearing the cry for potential jail terms — specifically
when it comes to the IRS issue in targeting of conservative groups, do
you see this as going that far?”
The short answer to this question from George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley was “no.” Not because of the criminal misconduct of the IRS, but because “rarely do people go to jail for it.”
MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts
followed suit. He began his segment on GOP overreach by playing a
portion of Republican National Committee web video chastising the
president for failing to abide by his own promise of transparency.
Salon columnist Irin Carmon was available to defuse the president’s multiple controversies for MSNBC’s anxious audience.
“With Benghazi, Republicans have not really found a smoking gun,”
Carmon asserted. “I don’t even understand that they are accusing the
president of doing.”
She added that the scandals surrounding the IRS and the Associated
Press are slightly more complicated but, in her opinion, the GOP would
be exhibiting extraordinary hypocrisy if they were to even acknowledge
the existence of a scandal.
“For Republicans, it would be pretty hypocritical to pretend to care
about it,” Carmon said of the Department of Justice’s acquisition of
months of telephone records form the AP.
“Well, sure,” Roberts agreed. “It was last year, roughly about this
time, that the right – that is – was asking a lot of questions of the
“They even accused the president of being the one in the
administration of sending these leaks out into the public on their own,”
This trend is certain to accelerate. These are, for now, the political
press’ opening bid to shift the focus of the story about the White
House’s scandalous overreach into a story about Republican’s
pathological desire to attack the president and his administration.
RELATED: Chris Matthews: “White supremacy” is a pretty big part of all of this opposition to Obama
Hey, remember when then-Senator Barack Obama and a legion of other Democrats demanded that Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for firing 8 U.S. attorneys? The liberal media sure doesn’t. And yet, having miraculously survived the gross negligence and incompetency surrounding the “Fast and Furious” gun scandal, AG Eric Holder is once again making news for all the wrong reasons with the Associated Press-leak scandal and this time, even Obama stans can’t defend him:
Who says there is no consensus anymore between hyper-partisan
Democrats and Republicans? Well, just about everyone these days. But the
usual Cassandras, often seen decrying the supposed lack of concord in
Washington D.C., are unlikely to point to the developing consensus
around the notion that Attorney General Eric Holder
should resign as a welcome bit of political comity. Still, and in spite
of the silence of the hollow, label-free political commentators who
value unity for its own sake, anything that brings together former
Current TV host Keith Olbermann and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has to be worth noting.
“The First Amendment doesn’t request the federal government to respect it; it demands it,” declared RNC Chairman Priebus in a written statement released on Tuesday.
“Attorney General Eric Holder, in permitting the Justice Department to
issue secret subpoenas to spy on Associated Press reporters, has
trampled on the First Amendment and failed in his sworn duty to uphold
Attorney General Holder has so egregiously violated the
public trust, the president should ask for his immediate resignation. If
President [Barack] Obama does not,
the message will be unmistakable: The President of the United States
believes his administration is above the Constitution and does not
respect the role of a free press.
Priebus found some unlikely allies in his call for action from the
White House regarding the DoJ’s decision to unilaterally obtain two
months of telephone records from the Associated Press.
Making up Priebus’ coalition of the willing in his crusade to force
President Obama to jettison his friend and close political ally are
Olbermann and progressive radio and television host David Schuster:
“If Mr. Holder continues to support this rogue action, he should resign,” Olbermann declared on his Twitter account Tuesday.
Given all this unity, it is a curiosity as to where the members of
the perpetually chagrined third way crowd are hiding? Shouldn’t this be
celebrated? Is this not a Kumbaya moment which merits shouting from the
rooftops? Granted, Holder’s potential resignation is not so much a
policy achievement as it is a long-overdue correction, but it is a place
Perhaps, in coming days, we will point to bipartisanship and say that
this regularly lip serviced phenomenon actually accomplished something.
RELATED: Eric Holder blasts IRS scandal, defends seizure of Associated Press phone records
Comedian Wayne Brady‘s animosity towards Bill Maher has not softened since he said last June he wanted to “slap the shit out of” the Real Time host for jokes he had made about him. Speaking to Marc Lamont Hill on HuffPost Live Monday, Brady reaffirmed his desire to “beat [Maher's] ass in public” for saying President Obama, like Wayne Brady, is not a “real black” man.
Maher first explained his desire for Obama to be a “real black president” who “lifts up his shirt so they can see the gun in his pants” during a monologue in 2010. Subsequently, Maher referred to Obama as “your Wayne Brady,” a characterization that put into question the African-American credentials of both Obama and Brady.
“I’ve respected him as a comedian, and what he does on HBO is great,” Brady told Hill. “But when he starts to drag me in, to use me as the cultural linchpin of his not-black-enough argument, that’s bullshit.” Turning the argument around, Brady questioned Maher’s credentials to discuss the black experience. When he meets Maher again, Brady said, he’ll be that “stereotypical black dude” for him “and I will beat your ass in public.”
“Be careful when you make statements like that,” Brady warned Maher, because it will allow his viewers to make the same stereotypical assumptions about black people.
RELATED: Maher To Greenwald & Reid: Would Kidnapped Ohio Women Been Found Earlier ‘If They Were In A Richer Neighborhood’?