Before getting into this story, I have a bone to pick with you boneheads.
Yesterday, I wrote two posts about Kevin McCarthy leaving his post early. I wrote as if I believed that the new Congress would be seated in January, so that he would only be leaving us short-handed for a couple of weeks before the new Congress was sworn in.
In other words, I was thinking that he was saying he'd leave in 2024. Or that it currently was 2024. I thought that he was only talking about leaving a couple of weeks early before the new Congress was seated on January 8th or whenever it will be seated.
In 2025, that is.
Hey, look, I saw Godzilla Minus Zero in a reasonably full house and I picked up a bug. I'm sick.
Anyway, looking back, I remember now that some commenters did correctly say "He's leaving early, what does it matter if he leaves one week or the next," but none of you dum-dums were smart enough to pick up on the fact that I was being very very stupid and I was completely out-to-lunch about what year we were talking about.
Do none of you read me? How am I going to maintain this blog if none of you bother reading me closely enough to realize I've gotten the freakin' year wrong? I can't count on myself to catch these errors; I count on you.
You've let me down. I can't do this alone people.
Do better. #DoBetter.
Anyway, this asshole is not leaving in December 2024 as I bizarrely thought he was, but this year, leaving his position more than a year early, not a couple of weeks early. So, as a commenter alluded, what does it matter if he leaves on December 28th or December 7th? (Note, in my Lost Time thinking, I thought we were talking about a short 8 or ten day gap between his leaving and the seating of the next Congress versus a month-long gap -- more of a substantial change. But my head is filled with mucous and it sloshes when I stand up.)
Anyway. As Emily Latella said: Never mind.
Now on to this new low from the media.
You will surely remember the Obama years when the leftwing Enemy of the People media constantly castigated all right-leaning critics of Obama that we must not be too "strident" in our criticism of Obama, lest we encourage a hypothetical assassin. We would have to modify our political speech and self-censor and refrain from making arguments that were too compelling lest we even slightly increase the very small chances that someone would try to kill The First Gay President.
Well, here's Robert Kagan at the official Establishment/Deep State newsletter the Washington Post declaring that Trump will become a dictator with an accompanying illustration of Julius Caesar, a dictator who was, quite famously, successfully assassinated.
And by ranking politicos and Deep State operatives, to boot.
Far-right Florida Rep Matt Gaetz has claimed that the press is "green-lighting" the assassination of former President Donald Trump by reporting on what a second Trump term would look like.
Anyone who is not far-left is now "far-right." Fucking Jon Lovitz and Rob Schneider are now "far-right." The term is a meaningless insult.
On Monday, Mr Gaetz tweeted "They're obviously green-lighting assassination" and included a screenshot from a Washington Post op-ed by Post Opinions contributing editor Robert Kagan bearing the headline "A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending".
Responding to Mr Gaetz, Condé Nast Legal Affairs Editor Luke Zaleski noted that "There is nothing you can say or do to confront Maga gaslighting that won't be met with more MAGA gaslighting".
"They'll say anything to make themselves the victim and hero in everything. And there is nothing you can say to do anything about it. That is the MAGA gaslighting paradox," he added.
LOL. Leftwing SJWs accusing others of playing the hero while crying victim.
We are demanding that you play by the same rules you impose on others. If "stochastic terrorism" is a real thing -- and you tell us constantly that it is -- then you are required to obey your own rules and tone down your own rhetoric to avoid "stochastically" setting off a random killer with a mental hair-trigger.
The image for the op-ed was a split image with the top being the head of a statue of Roman dictator Julius Ceaser, who was assassinated in 44BC, and the bottom being the face of Mr Trump.
Subtle.
The Post editor goes on to say that the "likeliest outcome" of Mr Trump's many upcoming trials "will be to demonstrate our judicial system's inability to contain someone like Trump and, incidentally, to reveal its impotence as a check should he become president".
That's because all of these prosecutions are bullshit. Three are are just based on completely made-up "Trump Only" non-laws, and one -- the documents case -- while based on actual law, has been repeatedly unprosecuted in the cases of Hillary Clinton and now Joe Biden.
"Indicting Trump for trying to overthrow the government will prove akin to indicting Caesar for crossing the Rubicon, and just as effective. Like Caesar, Trump wields a clout that transcends the laws and institutions of government, based on the unswerving personal loyalty of his army of followers," he adds.
When did he try to "overthrow the government"? Which of the fake prosecutions is about that? Not even the Fani Willis sham prosecution is about "overthrowing the government."
The leftwing legacy media which demands censorship and bankrupting advertising boycotts for anyone outside the leftwing claque affords themselves so much latitude in just making up fake facts to fit their rhetoric.