August 09, 2014

Source: Shutterstock

The Week’s Most Erratic, Dramatic, and Traumatic Headlines

In 2008, Barack Hussein Obama ascended to the US presidency on chocolate butterfly wings not solely due to the fact that he is 50% black, but also because of his staunch opposition to the Iraq War.

On Thursday, he ordered “targeted airstrikes” in northern Iraq “to protect our American personnel” and as “a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians.”

That’s a delicious alibi, seeing as how US military intervention since 2003 has already led to the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Perhaps if Obama is able to save over 100,000 lives with this latest dunderheaded foray, it will justify the more than $2 trillion that America’s meddling in Iraq has cost taxpayers so far. Or maybe not. Probably not. OK, definitely not. The O-bombing started on Friday.

Monday marked Obama’s 53rd birthday. In homage, a group of mischievous Russian students blasted the side of Moscow’s American Embassy with a laser show depicting Obama eating a banana.

“€œThere is indeed a war on whites, but it’s largely being waged by whites. We are a uniquely suicidal race.”€

On last week’s Fox News Sunday, journalist Ron Fournier warned that the Republicans were becoming a “party of white people” as if there was something wrong with that.

Appearing on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show the following day, Republican Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks (no relation to Mel) addressed Fournier’s comment by claiming that the Democrats”€”you know, those eternally PMS-addled brats who are always whining about the GOP’s imaginary ‘war on women’”€”were waging a ‘war on whites’:”

This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else. … It’s part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things.

As was to be expected, nearly everyone carped and screamed and bitched and bleated and bellyached at Brooks’s allegation, despite the fact that the left has for years turned the very word “white” into a vile pejorative. Critics were even more shocked that in subsequent interviews, Brooks did not concede an inch of ground, accusing the Democrats of being “a political party that regularly stokes unfounded racial fears.”

In response, a Washington Post scribe celebrated the idea that “Whiteness has less and less to do with being American” and averred that nonwhite immigration brings the “fresh blood needed to cure what ails us.” Taking the “sick blood” analogy one step further, a retired Episcopal bishop writing for the Daily Beast alleged that “Racism Is White America’s HIV,” claiming that although it can never be cured, it can at least be contained. Meanwhile, one of Gawker’s endless Rolodex of smug geeks referred to “Ignorant White People” in a headline, while a hairless beta turd at Business Insider wrote an article whose headline included the phrase “White People Suck.”

What do these four white-bashing columnists have in common? They’re all white. There is indeed a war on whites, but it’s largely being waged by whites. We are a uniquely suicidal race.

America is such a cesspool of racism and sexism that black women have been outliving white men since at least 1970. While this “war on women” we keep hearing about seems confined to meek suggestions that perhaps the ladies should pay for their own goddamned birth control, a much more obvious war on men rolls along with its scorched-earth tactics.

Across the pond, England is apparently suffering a shortage of sperm donors, so the NHS has rushed in to establish what is allegedly the world’s first national sperm bank. “NHS TO FUND SPERM BANK FOR LESBIANS,” belched The Mail on Sunday‘s front-page headline, which is a highly misleading miscarriage of journalism. The proposed sperm bank will also serve single women and the occasional infertile heterosexual couple, but an estimated quarter or more of its customers will be lesbian couples.

At a time when many terminal patients in England are allegedly perishing due to long waiting lists, somehow the NHS dug up £77,000 from its pockets to fund the new partially lesbian sperm bank. Laura Witjens, chief executive of the National Gamete Donation Trust, pooh-poohs the idea that children need or even want fathers:

There is no evidence to suggest that children are better off with or without a father. … There’s never been a call”€”from us or the Department of Health”€”to reduce the access to sperm for same-sex or single women. That’s a non-issue.

It’s become such a “non-issue” that England’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act has removed the phrase “need for a father” from its wording.

In Australia, it was recently reported that a lesbian couple successfully petitioned to have the name of the sperm donor who fathered their two children removed from their birth certificates, only to be replaced with the name of the Daughter of Sappho who had nothing to do with the children’s conception.

And thus the alleged “patriarchy” hobbles along”€”deeply wounded and without crutches.


Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!