Wa-Po asks ‘What’s so wrong with motherf—er?’ but they don’t actually spell the word. Um …

 

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 4: U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) poses for a group photo with the House Democratic women on Capitol Hill on Friday, January 4, 2019, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
(Photo by Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

“What’s so wrong with motherf—er?”

If there’s one thing the leftist media excel at, it’s rationalizing the inexcusable, be it the revolting sexual behavior of former President Bill Clinton, or, in the case of The Washington Post, the filthy mouth of newly elected Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib.

Only hours after being sworn into office Thursday afternoon with a Koran — and while adorned in a Palestinian gown — Tlaib delivered a speech to her supporters in which she referred to President Donald Trump as a “motherf–ker” and vowed to impeach him from office.

Listen:

“People love you and you win. And when your son looks at you and says, ‘Momma, look you won. Bullies don’t win.’ And I said, ‘Baby, they don’t, because we’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherf–ker,” she said.

While the Palestinian-American congresswoman’s filthy mouth offended a lot of people — including even some of her fellow Democrats — for some inexplicable reason it didn’t offend the Post.

“What’s so wrong with motherf—er?” reads an actual headline from the virulently left-wing publisher.

Look:

Say what?

According to columnist Molly Roberts, it’s OK for Tlaib to publicly use the term “motherf–ker” to describe Trump because he once privately spoke of grabbing women “by the p—y.”

‘”Motherf—er’ is filler; it means little more than ‘someone more unpleasant than “unpleasant” can convey.’ Saying you grab women ‘by the p—y,’ on the other hand, is truly damaging,” she opined.

Uh huh …

What social media users — including the one and only James Woods — would like to know is why, if what Trump once said is so much worse than what Tlaib said Thursday, did the Post choose to censor “motherf–ker?” Why not just publish the entire word, hmm?

Look:

It’s unclear whether anyone at the Post realizes this point. Given that realizing this point would require rubbing two brain cells together to produce a spark of intelligence, the chances are low.

But there’s another factor at play as well: Hypocrisy.

The Post is an outlet that cries foul every time the president or his nearly 63 million supporters say or do anything. Literally anything.

When the president awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom to deceased rock star legend Elvis Presley last November, the Post cried racism.

When members of the “Bikers for Trump” group were spotted last August wearing patches that read “I Love Guns … & Titties,” the Post cried sexism.

And when the Department of Homeland Security put out a press release last February that contained arguments in favor of the president’s tough immigration approach, the Post cried Nazi.

But when a member of Congress used profanity to tell her son (and her supporters) that she plans to impeach the president, aka “the motherf–ker” as she put it, the Post gave a thumbs up.

*facepalm*

The last tweet was somewhat right. Some segments of the liberal media did melt down when rock star legend Kid Rock jokingly referred to “The View” co-host Joy Behar as a “b–ch” last year.

Besides defending Tlaib’s profanity, columnists at the Post have also defended Marxism, defended comedian Samantha Bee’s usage of the profane term “c-nt” to describe the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and defended the abortion of Down syndrome babies:

HERE’S WHAT YOU’RE MISSING …

Vivek Saxena

Comments

Latest Articles