It's 9/11 to CNN and the MSM

There was a protest agains taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue in the state of Virginia. Supposedly the man who organized the protest was a white nationalist. Anti-protestors, mostly black, showed up and tensions rose. Violence broke out but no news source is sure who threw the first punch. A car backed up into a crowd of anti-protestors where one was fatally injured.

For the past, I don't know, five hours it's been the main story on CNN. The commentary was the usual  - take some moderate and/or sympathetic Republicans, grill them with ridiculous questions, while having self-indignant leftists, usually black, act as if their safe space was violated. The "moderate" Republicans also threw the right under the bus: an ex-CIA who grew up in a household of Republicans said that there is indeed a racist segment inside the GOP. He didn't names of course.

Another tactic was expressing the disappointment on how Trump reacted, where one commentator said he was diminishing the reality of the situation, saying that Trump's "we must condemn hate" was not enough. And the kicker? Before CNN took a commercial break the host quickly confirmed that she received news that the person who was driving the car that backed up into the crowd of anti-protesters was white. "And I received confirmation that the driver was white." MSM is rather determined to stamp this as a "white on black" crime. Too bad they wouldn't eager to know the San Bernardino terrorist's ethnicity. Alongside this was, again the host, doing something that was seen a mile away. Remember how the right criticized Obama and Hilary for not saying the word Islamic extremists after numerous domestic attacks, and even international attacks? Well the host asked a moderate Republican why Trump couldn't say (read: admit that the even was due to) white supremacy. When I heard this I had to chuckle and shake my head. Really? After one violent gathering where there are no official recordings of who started the fight CNN thinks they have a "gotcha" card on this. You got to be kidding me. Then she, the host, tries to idiotically tie in the KKK's backing of Reagan - "Your idol Reagan was supported by racists! What do you have to say to that!" Haven't they learned a lesson? They pulled this same nonsense when Piers Morgan tried to put Ben Shapiro in a corner asking him about Reagan's stance on gun control to which Shapiro said so what.

It's "breaking news" on youtube and it's going to receive front page news for Sunday's paper. It will most likely be the talk of the town for the entire week, focusing on how racist America is and how Trump's presidency is responsible for this. There will be "highlighted" youtube vids on this event by angry blacks saying "I told ya so!" You told nothin', brother. Same old same old.

And the MSM still hasn't a clue about what is the alt-right. Their idea of it is so shallow that it's almost embarrassing. To them alt-right mainly equals white supremacy. Because Richard Spencer and Bannon and Breitbart.  That's basically it.

MSM is trying super-duper hard.

The media doesn't like Ben Carson. There's many: Seth Rogen, to a couple of pop/on-line journalists giving Carson a big middle finger, to academia - funny enough, all have been from the social sciences, to networks trying to rip the surgeon over pyramids and whether or not he was actually given a full-ride to West Point (at least it wasn't affirmative action like Obama when it came to Columbia & Harvard).

I couldn't care less about on what he thought about the pyramids. The man's a surgeon, that's his specialty. How many people in such niche fields that needs dedications practically 24/7 seven days out of the week know what the pyramids were built for? Heck, I can't even remember and I was a big Egyptian history nerd in my grade school days. If you ask me upfront I'd shrug my shoulders and say, "They're used mainly as a burial chamber?"

The West Point tabloid like phenomenon, though more juicy that the aforementioned gossip, is still hand full of sand. Once you're admitted to West Point there's no tuition to be paid. Technically Carson did not lie; he just wasn't precise with his words and thoughts like he is with a knife while in surgery. It's unfortunate and he should've clarified for his own sake, but the media's laughable obsession of it is telling. They aren't obsessed with Hilary's emails. They're obsessed with framing Carson into a liar. To them Carson should be vetted like a suspect under a swinging ceiling lamp as he is questioned by the investigator. Too bad they got the wrong suspect: They let Hilary get away.

To exit and to 'out'

I never heard of now Aaron Schock (R-IL 18th District) before; it happens to be he is  the youngest GOP congressman (now ex) since 2001. My bing news feed brought him to my attention and I take that his resignation from the House of Representatives is mainly due to questionable spending for his office, other expenses and possible illegal donations for his campaign.

What I gather from quick internet searches and readings is that his main claim to fame, besides being young, good looking, in good shape, articulate and being media friendly (has an active instagram, posed for Men's Health in 2011 ) is his unusual desire to deck his office like Downtown Abbey. I'm an independent voter and I'll admit it (was) refreshing to learn of a politician who was "fresh" and not afraid to use social media to make the Republican brand a bit more digestible as compared to years ago. He also had a decent sense of style when it came to suits - gone were the clunky block suits where the cuffs showed four inches from the suit jacket, or the poorly fitted suit jackets that don many a politician. I take his resignation a hit for re-branding of the the word "Republican" despite his very questionable financial expenses. Schock also represented a district that wasn't a major metro, so I found that also refreshing. He grew up in the area and, being a bright young man, he could've said "Adios!" to his small town and elected to move to Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, the Minn-St. Paul or other cities like Seattle, NYC, Boston, Miami, LA or SF. He stayed.

Along my search to find more about him is that his media attention, besides the lavished office (which is rather bizarre to me, honestly ... Why?), is the left's almost "gonna get you" tone of his sexuality. If you asked me if I thought Schock was a homosexual if you should me a picture of him I'd say "No clue." Yes, he is unusually fit for a congressman his age. Yes, he apparently spent taxpayers dollars on "exotic" vacations, but that doesn't really tell me anything besides he's an idiot for doing so, and further gives politicians from Illinois a bad name. The only thing that would tilt my head is his decked out office (short lived) as if Wes Anderson was called to be an interior design consultant, which - okay - might make me think "Huh. Strange ... "

I'm not sure if he's being given this type of media attention because of his questionable spending and that he was a rising star in the GOP (he isn't a Tom Cotton to the media - see pic below), but I have a hunch the media is fixated on his resignation for all the wrong reasons. The MSM does a good job on keeping track of new faces within the GOP since they might pose a threat to the DNC.

               Whoa, MSM, don't make it so obvious that you don't like Republicans. Sheesh.

As I typed in Schock's name in google the first two searches that came up in the drop down menu was "Aaron Schock gay" and "Aaron Schock boyfriend." When it comes to possible search phrases, those that show up in the top half are the most typed in; people have been determined to know his sexuality for some time. Fair enough. He is a public figure that has caught the eye of those paying attention - we are curious beings. This does raise a question, though. Does it matter if the man is gay? Not really. I don't support same-sex marriage, and if he does then that's a major issue, but a person could be for such an issue regardless if one is straight or not. According to his wiki page he appears to be a social conservative on several matters like abortion and did not approve of the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." He also did not want so-called crimes against the LGBT to be included under "hate crimes." Again, if Schock is non-straight that's okay with me. Despite many of my posts being directed at my disagreement and disgust with the LGBT community, mostly the activists, their sexuality does not deter me from any possible friendship that I might have with them. What makes me upset is media's cruel hunt to expose Schock as a homosexual because he is a Republican that opposes many modern leftist pet issues.

If any of what I typed is true when it comes to the media's treatment of Aaron Schock, shame on them.

A note to conservatives commenting on Chicago

PG-13 for crude language.

Old-time conservatives when commenting on Chicago need to stop being so ignorant. I know that's a word that's thrown at non-progressives all the time, but I think in this case it's appropriate.

I am not apologizing for the city of Chicago's crime rate and gang wars, but if you want to "prove" that Democratic governance is horrid every time the city is mentioned, in whatever way, then at least drop the headlines that you receive in your local newspapers or whatever - most likely immensely inaccurate - ideas you have about crime in the city.

The "Chiraq" call is effective when commenting on the shootings, when acknowledging that there is a problem in Chicago, but on the South Side. But it stops there when conservatives or when outsiders use it. Why? If you want to get into the particulars a lot of the shooting happen in select low-income neighborhoods whose residents are black. Derrick Rose lived in Englewood which is a neighborhood known for its gang wars and crime. Ben Wilson aka Benji was shot to death in the South Side neighborhood of Chatham even thought Chatham is considered more of a "safe" neighborhood when compared to the likes of Englewood.

Most of the North Side of Chicago and Southwest Side are relatively safe. The West Side is the South Side Light, but like its "heavier" half most of the crime happens in certain neighborhoods - in certain streets/pockets/zones. What demographic tends to dominate the West Side? Latinos. Most of the North Side is white while the Southwest Side is a mixture of white (ie Polish immigrants) and family oriented Latinos. 

Many of the conservatives who comment on Chicago and its crime fail to acknowledge, or simply they succumb to laziness and generalizations, that a couple of the occurring facts that fail to make the headlines: Many of the shootings are located in neighborhoods on South Side which are dominated by black residents. The problem isn't the city itself, but the culture that pervades the South Side in these neighborhoods plagued by gang wars and ghetto mamas.

It's the culture, stupid!

When old-time conservatives complain about the MSM fooling America, they are fooled as well since Chicago crime fits right into the (true) narrative that ghetto culture ruins family and potential which is pushed by the right (and 'rightfully' so).

The irony of shot-gun feelings. No pun.