Once upon a time, the New York Times called herself the Old Gray Lady; now, truth be told, she’s much closer to a Bitter Old Bag. Long-winded, overexplained, tendentious, and biased against anything normal, the Times is more to be pitied than loathed. And like a festering boil on an old bag’s backside, Donald Trump continues to drive the increasingly hysterical pundits of the Times mad with frustration. The rash that is The Donald simply will not go away. Among many other things, Trump has exposed the Bag for what she really is: desperate to keep her dwindling readership by embracing transgender, gay, bisexual, black, Hispanic, even criminal elements, against Christian whites.
But this month’s column is not only about the dull and boring Times: It’s about how everyone in the world needs to have someone else on whom they can look down. Trump has become a convenient catchall for arrogant and self-important hacks to show their contempt for those less educated than themselves, the “invisibles” who are stupid enough to be for Trump. However smarmy and oleaginous toward Hillary, pundits are desperate to show themselves as leaders for a responsible electorate. They are nothing of the sort.
Here’s an example of what I mean by the unbiased news reporting the Times does not practice. The paper recently sided with the Muslims in an article that pretended to be a news report about 150 Somali Muslims who were fired by an American company in Colorado for demanding 20-minute breaks for prayer during their shifts on an assembly line. I will not go into detail, but every trick in the book was used. The only fact that wasn’t mentioned is that we are a secular society, and prayers are left at home or in our churches, synagogues, or mosques.
In today’s world, where everyone is a reviewer and a pundit, those who pretend to know better survive. The internet has done to humility what Bomber Command did to Dresden in 1945. One of these Times creatures, a columnist, recently took the high road and called voting for Trump a moral error. If I were writing for the Old Bag (heaven forbid), morality would not be in my lexicon.
Stuffed to the gills with embittered and furious lefties frantically trying to outdo each other with venomous attacks against the billionaire, they present The Donald as a head-chopping maniac who makes ISIS look like Mother Teresa. If that’s news fit to print, I’m Monica Lewinsky. Mind you, every newspaper and magazine is entitled to hold an opinion, but masking dogma as truth universally acknowledged is hardly cricket. For example: “How to explain Trump to your children” was a recent Times headline, written by a woman who once trolled the London scene for the Old Bag. Writing a long article about how parents were embarrassed by Trump’s crudeness about his sexual endowment was a stretch. Television and the movies are full of sex, vulgarity, and violence, yet one unfortunate remark, mostly meant in jest, hardly deserves a long boring diatribe about the dilemmas American parents are faced with. Another female by the name of Haberman wrote an equally tiresome piece on why Trump is running for president. According to this hack, he decided to run because Obama made fun of him during the White House Correspondents dinner.
Modern society is dominated by emotion and propaganda rather than reason. Hijacked by shysters and special-interest groups, government no longer serves the people. There is nothing more American than the cold-eyed distrust of politicians, hence The Donald. But try telling that to, say, William Kristol, a neocon who midwifed the Iraq war. Or to the rest of the neocons who helped Dubya make the most disastrous decision by any American president. That Kristol was given writing lessons at an early age is a shocking case of child abuse.
The neocons took over the Republican Party and made it the War Party. Millions have died, tens of millions are displaced, Europe has been overrun by Arabs and Africans, and Uncle Sam is close to two trillion wasted, yet these very same bums are railing against Trump. Ditto Hillary, who voted for the war. “Is there any scarier nightmare than president Donald?” asks one Times columnist, a man known to be as brave as a tiger circling a fawn. He claims that the thought of Trump’s “sweaty finger on the nuclear trigger” keeps him up at night. After George W., only a fool could ask such a dumb question. Another hack calls it heartbreaking that America’s next commander in chief may be a global joke. After Sarkozy and Hollande in France, the Merkel swine in Germany, or the Juncker mincing rat of a man in Brussels, I wouldn’t worry about becoming a joke.
The Clintons represent the past, as do George W. Bush and his neocons. There had to be a mutation, and that is Donald Trump.