It can be challenging to appear correct for some companies in this era of demanded virtue signaling. It becomes even worse for those in the media, because they face a field of landmines to tapdance through on stories regarding race and the protests.

On the one hand they have to pretend to be objective (insert laughter —. HERE), but how do you address even this veil of bias when we have seen that reporting on facts can be considered a racist act? To make matters even more daunting consider the plight in which the Washington Post now finds itself ensnared. The paper in the nation’s capital has every desire to display and repeat all of the talking points of today’s activists, but it may have painted itself in a corner regarding matters of skin color.

Initially the WaPo reported on the movement that is targeting the founding fathers because of their sketchy race-related past.

Of course these actions have brought up a number of questions. Why are these suddenly a problem today? Who did not know about these historical details? What does any of this have to do with George Floyd, or defunding the police? (Also, ”Does anyone even remember George Floyd?”)

However. not content to just report on these brain-dead activists who want to haul down statues commemorating the end of slavery, and guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughn, WaPo had to take things a step further.

In what had to be a way of looking as if the paper was on the correct side of the debate, a newer piece was published to take things one step further towards getting our first president of these United States canceled. In a lengthy attempt, the paper of record in D.C. calls out our first leader.

So then, George Washington is a bad guy. A horrible figure in our history. Anything attached to him needs to be altered, immediately – correct?

Ummmm…yea. This has suddenly become problematic for the paper.

This is true, because the calling out of our founding father can only have one result.

And there it is.

We are laughing because these are the exact standards we have been seeing over the past 4 years, and that we have been saying are stupid standards to apply.

A hateful name and a hateful founder of the paper?! We should just bulldoze the entire building that houses this intolerance.

But here is the positive takeaway — because we here are all about being positive. Since the Washington Post wants to make a production out of its titular president then until it changes its name we have every excuse to throw at them in the future as cause to not listen to whatever drivel they produce.

We should not entertain the viewpoints of a paper that chooses to name itself after such a monstrous human being!