Our 'ol pal Ron Marz keeps, well, a lie alive and ticking:
People are more angry at criticism of "American Sniper" than they were at being led to war on a pack of lies.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 21, 2015
Yes, the 'ol "Bush lied us into war" canard. *Sigh*
Once again, if Bush lied, so did all of these people. Bill Clinton. Nancy Pelosi. John Kerry. Madeline Albright. Al Gore. Ted Kennedy. And so on.
Further (again) WTF sense would it make for Bush and co. to knowingly lie about WMD being in Iraq ... only for that very lie to easily be exposed?? Bush et. al. may not be the brightest bulbs around, but they certainly ain't that dumb.
OK, now see if you can follow this one from (Muslim) writer of the (Muslim) Ms. Marvel:
If we were really serious about stamping out extremism in the Middle East, we would all buy electric cars.— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) January 22, 2015
So, by making middle eastern countries poorer via buying less and less of their main product (oil), this will "stamp out" (Islamic -- she, like President Lemon, can't bring herself to say it) extremism. Got it.
Mark Waid retweets:
If you follow the link to the story in question, here's what you'll find:
... an investigation of public records by the Washington D.C.-based District Sentinel online news site showed that between 1995 and 2009, Ernst’s family received nearly a half-million dollars in government handouts, payments targeted toward subsidizing farms with taxpayer funds.
BUT: "... Ernst’s own father, Richard Culver, received $38,395 in taxpayer handouts, almost all of which went to corn subsidies."
That means Ernst's pappy got a whopping $2742 per year (in corn subsidies) in the time period noted. Say it with me now: "Oooooooooohhhhhh ....!"
The article goes on to note that Ernst "failed to mention her own family’s reliance on government assistance ..." Right. If her family "relied" on $2700 per year, this gives a whole new meaning to American poverty.
FWIW, I'm against government farm subsidies of virtually any kind. But, as usual, SJWs like Waid typically go after ridiculous "targets" when there a lot bigger fish to fry.
Tub of blubber Michael Moore calls "American Sniper" Chris Kyle a "coward."
Here's our 'ol pal Ron Marz showing how he dialogues with folks who hold an opposing viewpoint:
Delightful to see the people complaining about #FreeCommunityCollege are those most sorely in need of an education.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 9, 2015
Gail Simone on the attacks in France:
Urgh, just heard about the attacks. Terrible.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) January 7, 2015
And that's her only tweet about it at present. Good thing it wasn't some right-leaning anti-government type who did it, or worse -- a cop who shot an unarmed African-American. Then, her feed would be flooded with tweets!
Lastly, Tom Brevoort retweets this laugher:
Talk about your ever-lovin' straw man to take down oh-so easily! First, who the hell ever blames the entire black race for the actions of a black shooter? And who but the most outlandish extremists (on the other side) blame all Muslims for radical Islamist attacks?
But here's what Tom and his buddies do: For the actions of a lunatic who shoots up something related to government, they hurry to blame the most remote of ancillary evidence on 1) conservatives, 2) Republicans, 3) the Tea Party, 4) Rush Limbaugh, and 5) the Tea Party (again).
Speaking of which, here's some from a fairly recent post, courtesy of Kurt Busiek:
Notice it's not "Hey, c'mon, all politicians use such imagery so let's stop the nonsense," it's an immediate (and stupid) repetition of what the MSM was yammering about at the time.
If Palin was a Muslim, she'd be inviolate to folks like Busiek.
... talk about "standing with Charlie," etc.
Q: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?
A: Oh, well, I'm afraid of what the…that's where I'm really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I'm afraid for my life if I do.
Q: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they'll just send you a strudel.
A: They'll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I'm not going to say a word about them.
That is MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell responding to radio host Hugh Hewitt back in 2007.
My pal Douglas Ernst also noted that Muslim Marvel Comics scribe G. Willow Wilson (who writes the new -- Muslim -- Ms. Marvel) tweeted this yesterday:
The usual suspects will say "where are the Muslims condemning this?" All major Muslim inst. already have. Your media doesn't cover it.— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) January 7, 2015
While I am the last to trust our media implicitly, and while Ms. Wilson probably does have a point to some degree, what she and others who're quick to jump on the "it's only a small minority of Muslims" etc. bandwagon tend to forget are uncomfortable facts like these.
Here's a sampling:
Source links are available for each cite at the link above.
Here's another tweet for 'yas to chew on:
Remember when Ben Affleck called Bill Maher 'racist' for saying Muslims will kill you if you 'draw the wrong picture'?— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) January 7, 2015
“Associated Press censors Muhammad cartoons, sells 'Piss Christ' prints” http://t.co/OWd5zjhMnt— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) January 7, 2015
Lastly, here's Marvel bigwig and resident moron Tom Brevoort offering up a supposed "lie" that no one has actually said or even implied to my knowledge:
The greatest and most harmful lie of the 21st century is that to combat terrorists, we must become terrorists, to combat hate we must hate.— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) January 8, 2015
Nevertheless, I'll help Tom out: How is "harmful" to hate terrorist barbarians like those who killed the cartoonists in France and folks like ISIS? WTF should we do, Tom -- invite 'em over for dinner, for cripe's sake?
I've a feeling that Brevoort's "become terrorists ourselves" idiocy is a not-so veiled reference to the waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods utilized post-9/11. If so, simply spare us -- because any such moral equivalency is insane.
Indeed, a much greater and harmful lie in this 21st century is the notion that "outreach" and "being understanding" to ... "people" who could give less of a sh** about either and would still murder us without a second thought is a sensible policy.
Another great and harmful lie is what is noted above -- the "tiny minority" aspect along with the notion that Islam "has nothing to do" with folks like the France killers.
The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers' Delaware Douche:
And it is the only thing I can think of to explain the outrageous overreaction of a few on the right to the horrible and evil murder of two police officers in Brooklyn this weekend. NYPD Union President Pat Lynch and Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani went out of their way to directly blame President Obama and Mayor de Blasio for the murder of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
Indeed. This, from the guy/crew who constantly go out of their way to blame any right-leaning outfit the actions of some barely-associated lunatic. The Tea Party. The GOP Congress. Anti-abortion protesters. Anti-tax groups.
Hell, Delaware Douche once blamed the entire GOP for the poor economy and wanted them all shot.
And their buddies in the mainstream media do, too. And even presidents. Bill Clinton blaming the Oklahoma City bombing on talk radio, anyone?
If there was one person carrying, say, a "Go Back to Kenya, Obama!" placard at some Tea Party rally, well, then, the entire organization is suddenly the lunatic fringe.
If some guy who shot up a tax preparer's office had a Tea Party website in his Internet browser's cache, well, then, the TP is partly (mostly?) culpable for the dude's actions.
However, in the case of the cop killings of this past Saturday, some of the recent anti-cop protests actually had people shouting for the death of police officers: "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!"
But don't you dare implicate in any way President Lemon or Comandante De Blasio! Or even Al Sharpton.
These LGOMB ... "specimens" are so full of hypocritical arrogance that to even begin to take them seriously should make one question his very sanity.
Hey, remember how these dolts' Twitter feeds were all a-flutter after Michael Brown's and Trayvon Martin's shootings? And how self-righteous they all were about how incorrigibly racist and hateful society (still) is? And how anyone who disagreed with them was racist, stupid, hateful, extreme, etc.?
But now that several cops have been executed, we hear mostly ... crickets.
For example, here's Kurt Busiek back on the 19th parroting a John Scalzi tweet about supposed Ferguson grand jury shenanigans:
What's even more pathetic about Busiek is that he was one of those who "wondered" if Sarah Palin's "target" language was partly responsible for the shooting of Gabby Giffords:
That, of course, disregards the fact the practically every politician uses such imagery. Nevertheless, there's been nary a word from Kurt about actual language of calling for the death of police. But, of course!
As for Gail Simone, look -- here's a retweet by her about Dick Cheney and torture!
Tom Brevoort was similarly still concerned about that "torture" report with this retweet.
Nothing about the cops, though. But, of course.
Ultra-bat Gerry Conway offered nothing about the police over the weekend, yet retweeted this ridiculous nonsense:
Things HAVE to change in this country. We cannot keep condoning the murder of black persons like their lives are ours to take at will.— Matt SantoriGriffith (@FotoCub) December 21, 2014
The exceptions to all this were Dan Slott and Ron Marz:
Didn't see the news today until now. A horrible tragedy. Thoughts and prayers to the families of the two officers.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) December 20, 2014
The deaths of police officers, a man in a choke hold, or a teenager gunned down in the street are all tragedies. No one should be rejoicing.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 21, 2014
Gotta be fair -- good for them.
Watch as NYPD officers turn their backs to Mayor Bill De Blasio as he heads to a press conference following the murder of two NYPD officers yesterday:
And apparently that wasn't all that faced the mayor:
deBlasio: "We're all in this together." NYPD Cop: "No we're not!"— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) December 21, 2014
(via FrontPage Mag)
Ah, the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers. They couldn't WAIT for this day. Something -- anything -- to get the subject of the biggest joke of a chief exec ever off the front pages ... even for just a bit.
MARVEL at their hilarious pomposity that "Republicans are for torture," knowing all the while that rendition began under Bill Clinton, and that President Lemon has droned the living f*** out of terrorists -- including known American citizens -- which has had the side effect of offing quite a few women and kiddies.
PONDER how waterboarding and preventing regular sleep of heinous terrorists is somehow "worse" than killing same without the coveted "rights" and "due process" we heard from "progressives" throughout the 2000s.
PUZZLE over why this had to be made public today, when Jonathan Gruber was testifying on the Hill about ObumbleCare and all the associated the lies about that train wreck. Not to mention that barbarians like al Qaeda and ISIS will use this for propaganda gold.
MULL over how Democrats, including the White House, can (laughably) claim some "moral high ground" by releasing this ... saying stuff like "We can do better," while the IRS has systematically targeted right-leaning groups and individuals for years now (something Richard Nixon never did), how we were lied to repeatedly about ObumbleCare which affects one-sixth of our economy, and ....
REALIZE, however, that next month is the beginning of the END for the inept charlatans who've been running our government.
If even some of these are authentic, the mindset behind them is truly scary.
Here's an example:
Remember folks -- they want your money for their product, but if you disagree with them you're an instant pariah. And if you keep buying their product, they're laughing at you all the way to the bank. Hard.
Courtesy of the FCMM, here are some more creator tweets about Ferguson:
Fear, hate, bigotry, slander, and police corruption won Justice did not. #FergusonDecision— Daniel Kalban (@DanielKalban) November 25, 2014
And perhaps best of all, this:
Get it? Capullo knows Officer Wilson was guilty. He can feeeeeeel it, dammit!
But you gotta give props to Capullo for one thing:
I don't run away from people that have different opinions. I'm simply not that weak.— Greg Capullo (@GregCapullo) November 25, 2014
Good for him, as that makes him quite unlike most in his field.
Nevertheless, FCMM's Avi Green nails it after this Capullo tweet:
I will stand my ground regarding my opinion that there should have been a trial.— Greg Capullo (@GregCapullo) November 25, 2014
Avi: "And if there was he'd come to the same conclusion he did when the jury decided not to approve an official indictment."
It will come as no surprise, but the usual suspects, of course, feel the need to "chime in" because, y'know, they're so "smart" and "up on things."
It's been a while since we've checked in on Gail Simone; but she sure didn't let us down:
Why are the protesters and families of the victims always the ones under the microscope? Why not the perpetrators?— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) November 25, 2014
We are failing.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) November 25, 2014
I don't see how any parent could ever be okay with this. The inhumanity displayed from the event to this moment is shattering.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) November 25, 2014
And then there was this lovely retweet from her:
My 7 year old son just said: "Don't worry mom. If we want to live, we just have to stay home". I'm turning off my tv. My heart just broke— Petty LaBelle (@d_Sassy1ne) November 25, 2014
The sad thing about all this is that "progressives" routinely claim to be those who believe in science -- y'know, deriding
global warming climate change skeptics as lunatics, laughing at disbelievers of evolution (rightly, of course), and right-wing historians who only want to emphasize the good America has done and ignore its sordid side (also rightly).
Yet, people like Simone will ignore all the evidence that grand jury saw, re-saw, heard, re-heard, debated, and re-debated ... all the science. Like, if the person whose tweet Simone retweeted really is worried about her son's life, she shouldn't worry about folks like Darren Wilson, but about residing in a predominately black inner-city community. The chances of being a victim of violence with the latter are magnitudes greater.
Remember, too: this grand jury included three African-Americans. Will these three now be referred to as "Uncle Toms?"
Maybe Simone is doing all this so that she can maintain her "progressive" cred. Maybe she feels guilty because she lives in a state with a black population of around two percent.
Either way, it's ridiculous and irresponsible.
Here are a few examples of some of our other "pals":
Disgusted by grand jury decision in #Ferguson. And not at all surprised.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 25, 2014
A Mark Waid retweet:
The #Ferguson Prosecutor McCulloch said that the grand jurors gave up their lives during this process. No, they didn't. But Mike Brown did.— BrianKeene (@BrianKeene) November 25, 2014
A Dan Slott retweet:
I am terrified for everything that will stem from this. This is a full on war now #Ferguson— Salena Johnson (@SalenaMahina) November 25, 2014
Remember, these are the folks that believe in SCIENCE! Except when it conflicts with THEIR political dogma.
And hilariously, many of these folks are criticizing the prosecutor (who's a progressive Democrat, by the way) for lambasting social media's role in the whole Mike Brown saga ... all while posting frivolous social media commentary like "I worked in a prosecutor's office once and I can tell you this is a travesty!"
Meanwhile, here's a "surprise" locally.
Because when someone -- a white person, that is -- offers some blunt honesty, it's merely “the defensive mechanism of white supremacy at work."
That, according to the master of pseudo psycho-socio babble, Michael Eric Dyson:
So, so much for "honesty."
UPDATE: Ian Tuttle on NRO:
The Left has a storied history of transforming legitimate disagreement into mental illness. Utilizing his influence as director of the Institute of Psychiatry of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, Soviet psychiatrist Andrei Snezhnevsky propagated throughout the Soviet Union and its satellites the notion of “sluggish schizophrenia,” a condition from which, conveniently, thousands of Soviet dissidents happened to suffer. Opposing official government policy, pessimism, religious practice — all were symptoms of mental instability, the solution for which was incarceration in a mental hospital.
The People’s Republic of China continues the practice. In September, watchdog group Chinese Human Rights Defenders reported that a blogger critical of the government had been seized in his home and committed. Another activist apparently has been in psychiatric detention since 2007.
The American Left has not set up hospitals, but one can see less extreme manifestations of the same impulse all about. Consider “sensitivity training.”
And certainly this impulse was on display in the quarrels above. How is one to debate whether Rudy Giuliani says what he does merely because he is a white supremacist? “But I am not a white supremacist!” he might object — which is, of course, what all white supremacists say! And when Blow claims that the president’s opponents are desperately clinging to power, how is such an opponent to respond? After all, doctor knows best.
To psychologize the question at issue in a debate is to remove it from the realm of debate altogether.
We saw a few days ago how one blogging Delawarean thinks about disagreeing with President Lemon; now, our old pal Perry has finally chimed in -- not only about the mid-term election results, but offers up a similar sentiment to "Progressive Populist" of the LGOMB.
Let's take the latter from Perry first, regarding ObumbleCare:
Sometimes the ends justify the means, and this is the perfect case for it. As a result, there are millions of people relieved who now have coverage which they could not have had before this law.
There you have it -- because Perry is a fervent believer in ObumbleCare, it should be implemented by any means necessary. Just imagine if George W. Bush and the GOP ... well hell, you know.
Next, here's some of Perry's nonsense about November 4th (my comments are in italics):
Republicans won without much of an agenda, but with lots of negative campaigning and racism in the South. (What about the racism of the Left/Democrats of which there was MUCH more?)
Republicans won without a mandate, with only a plurality of less than 50%, reminiscent of GWB. (And Bill Clinton in 1992.)
Democrats must retake the Senate and retain the White House to curb Republican extremism. (Uh, that's why the GOP won two weeks ago -- to curb Democratic extermism.)
Republicans, starting with Reagan and continuing with GWB, cut taxes, increased spending, therefore increased the deficit. GWB doubled it. (Selective amnesia, natch. Obama skyrocketed both the deficit and the debt. In fact, he increased the latter more than all presidents combined before him!)
Democrats under Clinton and Obama enabled the country to recover, prosper, while still slowing the deficit. (Nonsense. Clinton did so because he worked with the GOP landslide Congress of 1994; Boss Obama's policies have done nothing to initiate a "recovery;" indeed, the unemployment figures are largely smoke and mirrors as we've seen record numbers of people leave the workforce, and most of the new jobs aren't good-paying full-time jobs anyway.)
Yeah, 'ol Per sure is an easy target, but it sure is fun -- and scary -- to check in once in a while on how these not-so-closeted authoritarians think.
The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers' "Progressive Populist" thinks that opposition to President Lemon's climate deal with China is ... treason.
Seriously. For real.
This is how the contemporary Left thinks -- not only that you're f***ing stupid (Gruber, Obama, most Democrats), but that opposing what they want is actually criminal.
Here's what "comedian, educator and comic book editor at large" Tom Brennan tweeted the other day:
Just to be clear - when it comes to the environment, today we learned the government of China is more reasonable than the GOP. CHINA.— Tom Brennan (@Brennanator) November 12, 2014
Indeed, the very same China where one cannot see across the street because of the ridiculous amount of pollution it belches out, not to mention where people have to wear surgical masks to avoid the equivalent of several packs of cigarettes ... just from walking down the street.
"Oh," but Brennan says, "the scenes where we saw all that was like six years ago!" (Meaning, the 2008 Beijing Olympics.)
Eminem bombarded an audience filled with veterans with the f-bomb on Tuesday night as he performed on the National Mall at The Concert for Valor.
The 42-year-old rapper, dressed in cap and hoodie, yelled into a microphone: 'Happy motherf****** Veterans Day' before launching into the show's closing set which ended with the anthemic Lose Yourself.
Also causing a bit of a stir was Bruce Springsteen, Dave Grohl and the Zac Brown Band doing a cover of the anti-war, Vietnam era "Fortunate Son." You can probably take the meaning, and writer John Fogerty said that the song was “my confrontation with Richard Nixon.”
Except that ... Nixon was anything but a "fortunate son." He actually refused the exemption he was permitted (he was a Quaker) to serve in World War II.
At any rate, why sing such a song at an occasion celebrating soldiers' valor?
L.G.O.M.B. = Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers, natch.
Check out the latest from The First Street Journal. After FSJ's Dana took up Jason "Trust Fund" Scott's $50 bet about so-called GOP economics -- and did so completely and unswervingly thoroughly -- here was Trust Fund's reply:
Do you know who owns the Wall Street Journal? Probably not. You are an idiot. I’ll probably ban your ass for stupidity again pretty soon.
Enjoy talking to yoursf here in the meantime.
But of course.
FWIW, Dana provided several sources for his points besides the WSJ (Dallas News, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, the Sacramento Bee, and Wallet Hub), but to any radical nutjob "progressive," the mere fact that a conservative-leaning (well, the editorial board, at least) publication is mentioned is enough for complete disqualification.
Hey, look -- whenever you start thinking Trust Fund is a serious thinker, always remember this nugget: "While reasonable people can disagree about whether or not George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks ..."
Locally, 'ya gotta love this story: the hubby of State Senator Bethany Hall-Long was nabbed stealing GOP campaign signs from a roadside ... at 3:00 in the morning.
When asked for comment, Ms. Hall-Long said,
Sadly, this race has become tough and personal. My husband is my high school sweetheart and he loves me very much. I was not aware that he had allowed his frustration over the campaign attacks to get the better of him. Of course I'm disappointed and wish that it had not happened.
In Wisconsin, how did "journalists" not discover this little nugget about Democratic gubernatorial challenger Mary Burke ... until just now? Yeah, gee, I wonder ...
New York State Democrats who haven't voted in recent elections got "menacing" letters from the New York State Democratic Committee: “we will be reviewing voting records . . . to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014. . . . If you do not vote this year, we will be interested to hear why not.”
Not too creepy ...
In Massachusetts, you'd think a Dem gubernatorial candidate would be a shoo-in ... except here it's Martha Coakley:
Down in Texas, wanna know why Dem gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis ain't gonna win? Redistricting, says co-founder of the Daily Show, Lizz Winstead, on MSNBC. Chee-yeah, OK ...
If you're concerned about Ebola, you're ... racist. The headline and sub-headline are sufficient; the whole article will make you scratch your head wondering just how pathetically stupid some people really are.
The problem with the west's Ebola response is still fear of a black patient
Ebola is now a stand-in for any combination of ‘African-ness’, ‘blackness’, ‘foreign-ness’ and ‘infestation’ – poised to ruin the perceived purity of western borders and bodies
The biggest racists must be Africans themselves, then, since (as Insty notes) they are closing borders and imposing travel restrictions.
You guessed it: MSNBC.
Let's go to the Melissa Harris-Perry Show:
GARRETT: "I was on Capitol Hill yesterday. I spoke to lot of the political leadership of the United States and I have to say I was stunned by how many felt the solution was to completely cut off Africa. no visas. no travel. Keep them out. And this is completely missing the point. The hysteria should not be about one person in Dallas. What the world should be hysterical about is that Africa is facing its greatest catastrophic crisis arguably since the days of slavery. This could turn into carnage across a whole region if the world does not assist immediately."
EDOZIEN: "That would never work. Keeping them out would not work. And the idea that you can keep out a whole group of people who are America's partners, whether we like it our not, West African nations are partners with this country ..."
GARRETT: And trying to do that racist. Let's us be frank about it.
EDOZIEN: Exactly. It's borderline racism and fear.
That'd be Laurie Garrett of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Frankie Edozien, New York Times columnist and editor of The AFRican Magazine.
NBC's "point man" in the Muslim Middle East, Ayman Mohyeldin, couldn't say which extremism—Christian, Jewish or Muslim—poses the greatest current threat to civilization":
That's right, this idiot actually invoked the Crusades. And then was "rescued" by a NY Times reporter who jumped in to say that global warming is civilization's greatest contemporary threat.
Elsewhere, ultra-moonbat Rosie O'Donnell amazingly has her "The View" gig back -- despite her 9/11 Trutherism (actually, that's a plus in Hollywood, apparently) -- and went out of her way to praise Ben Affleck for "taking on" (if you can call it that) fellow lib Bill Maher on the subject of radical Islam.
Geez, the one time Maher makes a rational point and his fellow "progressives" are all over his sh**. Par for the course, natch.
As an aside, can anyone imagine an ultra-right wing Birther with the popularity of a Rosie O'Donnell not only being on a mainstream like "The View," but having been invited back to it?
First they said "reasonable people can disagree about whether or not George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks."
Then they wanted all Republicans rounded up and shot due to their preference for deregulation.
Now, the American Petroleum Institute is somehow in cahoots with ISIS/ISIL to doom us all via catastrophic global warming.
This is the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers here in the First State, folks. Most reasonable people have long since given up trying to talk common sense to them (mainly because they delete such comments virtually immediately) so that their site is now an ultra-left communal coffee clatch where everybody serves up cute little quips and giggle in unison.
(h/t to First Street Journal.)
Well hell, why not? Makes about as much sense as the rest of the garbage they put out.
The Huffington Post's Washington bureau has hired professional football player and 9/11 truther Donte Stallworth as a fellow, covering national security.
Stallworth, a wide receiver in the NFL since 2002, is currently an unsigned free agent and has not played in any games since 2012. He is also a 9/11 truther, and has publicly stated that Osama bin Laden was not responsible for the attacks and that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane.
"NO WAY 9/11 was carried out by 'dying' Bin Laden, 19 men who couldn't fly a damn kite. STILL have NO EVIDENCE Osama was connected, like Iraq," Stallworth tweeted in 2009. Stallworth also doubted tweeted, "Gggrrrrrrrrrrrrr @ ppl who actually believe a plane hit the pentagon on 9/11... hole woulda been ASTRONOMICALLY bigger, God bless lost lives." (Source)
Hilariously, HuffPo Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim said that Stallworth's Truther statements "doesn’t represent how he thinks today," and that he said them five years ago. Except that, Stallworth's last Truther statement took place in November of 2013.
Possibly even more hilarious is how the HuffPo thinks Stallworth is actually qualified to cover national security issues in the first place: "[Stallworth] has a quick mind, an insatiable curiosity and a passion for politics -- the necessary qualities of a great journalist."
Yeah, man. Whatever you say.
Naomi Shihab Nye in today's News Journal, like way too many other anti-Israel zealots, omits tons of key facts regarding the current plight of Palestinians/Gazans.
Oppression makes people do desperate things. I am frankly surprised the entire Palestinian population hasn’t gone crazy. If the U.S. can’t see that Palestinians have been mightily oppressed since 1948, they really are not interested in looking, are they?
*Sigh* If I've documented once, I've documented it a million times. You have only your Arab neighbors to blame for any oppression you suffer, Ms. Nye. If "the entire Palestinian population hasn’t gone crazy," it sure isn't because of lack of effort by the likes of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, et. al.
For they gobbled up the land allocated for the Palestinians in 1948, and then they, along with the Palestinians, attacked the nascent Israel. They lost. And they kept losing every other time they tried.
You casually mention the Six Day War without reference or context. This is not, sadly, surprising in the least.
It's really just boring already, Ms. Nye. Sympathy and needed change begin with taking responsibility. Try taking a page from the late Anwar Sadat and see if things don't begin to look different.
Via Weasel Zippers:
Say what? A twelve percent drop for blacks since the start of President Lemon's tenure? How can that be?
It's been a while, and I see there was a recent "controversy" over a variant Spider-Woman cover, so let's get right to it ...
... the cover in question can be seen here, and was asked for by Marvel. Now, for the NON fun-extinguishers among us (i.e. the non-politically correct), this cover is no big deal. But for the 'bat creators this should be -- after all, how in the hell can Marvel commission such a flagrantly sexist and objectifying piece of art?
Dan Slott, who has no shortage of the "right" beliefs, amazingly defends the cover, calling the matter a "false controversy." And that's just for starters. Be sure to check out his Twitter feed, if you can stomach the hilarious hypocrisy.
Then there's our 'ol pal Ron Marz, who's miffed -- MIFFED, I tell you -- about some of the "abject and unapologetic racism" seen in Ferguson, MO. Of course, by that we know he means only white racism, but that aside, Marz is "concerned" about that, yet mocks comics blogger Avi Green thusly:
Listening to Roger Waters again. It's enough to drive that nutty blogger guy who follows me crazy ... if he wasn't already crazy.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) August 22, 2014
Not only has Avi brought up what a raving hypocrite Marz is for continuing to back a raging anti-Semite like (Pink Floyd's) Waters, yours truly has, too. Ya'd think that someone concerned with racism, bigotry, sexism, etc. 24-7 (like Marz) would take a stand ... shun Waters for his Jew hatred. But, nah -- the music's good! Funny how that didn't matter with regards to Orson Scott Card and Ender's Game, eh?
In addition, as Avi notes, unlike Dan Slott, Marz is upset at the Spider-Woman cover:
Nobody cares about your explanations or justifications. Own that you did something stupid, say you're very sorry, and then SHUT UP.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) August 21, 2014
Except that ... "If only he'd admit he went overboard with Green Lantern's fridge scene ..."
Lastly, there's good 'ol Mark Waid, who back on the 19th tweeted the following (see if you can spot the irony):
"Non-hyperbolic," yet ... "hands-in-the-air," "in the back" ... Uh huh.
And so it goes ...
Jonathan Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy discusses the case of Steven Salaita, the former Virginia Tech professor who had been offered a gig at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign.
Salaita's U. of Illinois job offer was abruptly rescinded after he had made a series of hateful tweets about Israel and defenders of that country. (The College Fix has numerous articles about the situation.) Immediately, many spoke out in favor of Salaita's right to free expression -- his "academic freedom," if you will. The support comes from both sides of the political spectrum, but has been most vociferous on the left.
Some of the pro-Salaita free speech arguments are persuasive (like FIRE's Adam Kissel's), but I find myself more in Adler's corner. He writes:
I largely share [Northwestern University law Professor Steven] Lubet’s views. His point about the disingenuous (or uninformed) characterization of the tweets in question is particularly well taken. As he notes, when defending Nazi marchers in Skokie, Ill., “the ACLU never soft-pedaled the Nazis as merely passionate critics of international banking.” I agree with Lubet that an academic should not be fired or denied a job offer, because of his or her political views, but I also question whether someone with Salaita’s record of hateful and offensive rhetoric is capable of being an effective academic and educator.
That last line really sticks with me. Trained in my last college undergrad years as a social studies educator, my (high school placement) cooperating teacher (amazingly, a conservative) was adamant about never allowing his personal opinions to leak into class discussions. He even outright refused to offer them when directly asked about them by students, in and out of class.
And these were mere opinions. We're not even talking about outrageous/vulgar/profane remarks in public forums.
Imagine if you were a Jewish student in one of Salaita's classes. What if his class was a requirement for your major? You think you'd get a fair shake knowing he knew you were Jewish? Or even worse, Israeli?
Which brings me to another aspect of this situation which really gets me: the brazen hypocrisy of "progressive" (I usually use quotes with the term because all-too often contemporary progressives are anything but) academics. They're often right on the front lines in the effort to abolish speech they do not like ... often dubbing it "hate speech." Speeches against affirmative action are "racist" (or, at least "racially insensitive"), people against abortion are "anti-women," and those in favor of traditional marriage are "homophobic," are a few examples.
Yet, Salaita's vulgar anti-Jewish/Israel tweets were instantly defended by "progressives." "Academic freedom," you see.
If Salaita's remarks are to be inviolate due to academic freedom, would Salaita's defenders say the same regarding a white supremacist professor? How many of you reading this believe they would?
There's a substantial difference between having a political opinion ... and gross inappropriateness. Salaita's feelings about Israel and Jews could have been offered in a much more seemly manner; indeed they should have been, given his position.
This being said, I admit this is a difficult arena in which to tread. Too broad a brush should not be used in making judgments; each instance, including that involving Professor Salaita, needs to be considered individually and carefully.
(Cross-posted at The College Fix)
Malik Zulu Shabazz, former chairman of the New Black Panther Party and the president of Black Lawyers for Justice, "informed" (Missouri) Highway Patrol captain Ron Johnson that "his groups, along with the Nation of Islam, are controlling the situation in the embattled city."
Everybody can relax now. (/sarcasm)
"Let me be clear: An attack on Rick’s integrity is an attack on Marvel’s integrity."
Is that so. Gosh.
As was the point of this post last week, many of the creators at both Marvel and DC have helped create the very atmosphere which led to the silly Remender situation. Anything anybody says/does that (seemingly) goes against the prevailing "progressive" wisdom is immediately pounced upon by these creators ... unless it's (seemingly) done by one of their own. And then the self-righteous indignation begins in earnest.
It's quite obvious Alonso doesn't really believe what he said about Marvel, above. If he did, he'd tell guys like Dan Slott, Ron Marz, Mark Waid, and Gail Simone to curb their condescending, hostile, rude, and factually challenged social media behavior towards those who differ politically from them.
And just in case, spare me the free speech "argument." No one is saying those named above cannot say what they want. It's merely a matter of manners but most especially business sense. One wonders why Alonso hasn't said something like "When you behave like that on social media, it reflects poorly on Marvel."
Here's a Twitter pic retweeted by our pal Dan Slott:
Slott asks of writer Tony Lee, a London-based writer who had also retweeted it, and Peter Anghelides, the tweet's originator: "Eep! Is this really how we look to the Brits?"
The text on the original tweet says "Spot the difference competition."
Y'see, it seems the "message" we're suppose to draw from this is all religions have their extremists, and that society shouldn't judge everyone based on the actions of "a few."
Except, as clear thinking people realize (and, thankfully, some pointed out on the Twitter feeds in question), the person on the right won't hesitate to kill you merely for not believing as she does. Or for saying something against her religion. Or merely because you're an Israeli. Etc.
The girl on the left, simply, wouldn't do any of those things. Not even close. The Bible and gun simply represent rights embodied in the very Constitution which governs us (represented by the flag in the background).
Dan Slott often tweets about bigotry and intolerance -- the kind he doesn't like. Like here, for instance. But as we've seen, he gets upset when people think he implies "everyone" of a certain group, yet he doesn't waste any time doing just that to someone else if there's no "requisite disclaimer."
Here's an example of bigotry which is perfectly acceptable to Dan Slott:
Just like the top pic above, that there's little/no difference between an American female who believes in the First and Second Amendments and a Middle Eastern jihadist woman who wouldn't hesitate to detonate a set of bombs strapped to her body just to off a few "infidels," people who believe in gun ownership rights -- again, rights which are codified in our highest legal document -- are dimwitted, gutteral-voiced "'Muricans" to people like the gnomish Dan Slott.
There are many contemporary comicbook creators who think as Slott does. It's how they think about you.
(Thanks to Doug Ernst for the various screen caps.)
The recent SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision really has caused many a "progressive" to get his/her panties in a real tight bunch. So much so in Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid's" case that, well, he's gonna tweet about the case ... and you're gonna accept what he says, dammit!!
Fair warning: anyone who makes a snide or sarcastic comment implying I've not read/don't understand the HL decision gets blocked.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) June 30, 2014
Well, the Supreme Court is on the contemporary comicbook crews' collective moonbat minds after yesterday's rulings, in particular with regards to the Hobby Lobby case. And they ain't happy. First up, our good pal Dan Slott compares the high court's conservative bloc (and contemporary Christians) to ... 16th century Spanish conquistadors:
You know who imposed their religious beliefs on others? The Conquistadors. And you know what they were? Assholes.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 1, 2014
I'd ask the gnomish one to explain how the SCOTUS (or modern Christians) "imposed" religious belief upon society (well, women, really in this case), but that would require an IQ over 90 and I don't think Dan qualifies. Not to mention, someone responded to Slott's tweet (supposedly humorously) "ask the Aztecs." Yes, indeed -- also ask what would have worse: The Spanish imposing Christianity upon the natives, or the Aztecs imposing their religion ... which routinely (and barbarically) included human sacrifice.
If Hobby Lobby were a Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish owned company, we would not be having this discussion. Is that a fair assessment?— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 1, 2014
Then, there's this retweet by the gnome:
A message to SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby from WW pic.twitter.com/4kuW6jVZ57— Pia Guerra (@PiaGuerra) June 30, 2014
Classy, eh? All because Wonder Woman can't have her employer (who knew she worked at Hobby Lobby?) pay for certain forms of birth control. Talk about your cognitive dissonance. Like this, too (retweeted by comics 'bat Gail Simone):
Indeed -- the company that pays your salary should just STFU and give you whatever benefits you desire. The hell with what their beliefs (or wants) are. They just give you a living, after all.
Along those same lines, here's Tom Brevoort, another political/legal mental midget, chiming in:
@DanSlott Yes, it's an absurd argument. You don't get to decide what taxes you get to pay. Corporations aren't people, aren't human.— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) July 1, 2014
Earth to Tom: Certain contraceptive benefits paid for by your employer are NOT taxes. And corporations ARE people in many (most?) legal realms, including this one. The predilection among modern "progressives" to bring up this corporation stuff ignores over 200 years of legal precedent.
Lastly, here's 'ol Ron Marz who obviously didn't feel like putting as much "effort" into the whole pile-on as Slott, et. al. did:
Actually, if the US soccer team does as well as the SCOTUS did yesterday, we'll be moving on to the quarter finals, thank you very much.
Be sure to check out, too, Douglas Ernst's reaction to these geniuses.
UPDATE: Also check out Truthwillwin1's reaction to the tweets in question.
UPDATE 2: The gnomish one is having a fit because "right-wing bloggers" took him too "literally." Funny, if a "right-wing blogger" had used "Muslims" without the requisite "some" or "radical" inserted in there, guys like Slott would be screaming bloody "Islamophobia" on social media for days.
Marvel dopey minion Tom Brevoort (who, I'm sorry to say, is a Delaware native) claims there is no blacklist at Marvel, and that Chuck Dixon -- who recently co-authored an article in the Wall Street Journal about comicbooks' liberal bias -- isn't banned from the company:
No, he isn’t.
Though, after this latest campaign, I don’t know that it would be easy to find an editor up here who’d want to risk working with him.
Nobody is refusing to look at Chuck’s work because of his beliefs. They might be refusing to look at his work because of his behavior. Different thing.
Given the way he’s comported himself, the things he’s said and how he’s said them, I would be reluctant to work with Chuck. I don’t work with people I cannot trust.
Chuck is a long-established, facile writer. He’s got proven skills. What seems to be short-circuiting his career at this point isn’t his politics, it’s his professionalism.
Are. You. Kidding. Me???
This hypocritical brazenness is without limit. First of all, what sort of "unprofessional" behavior is Dixon guilty of, Tom? Second, even a cursory examination of many creators' social media behavior -- especially that of Mark Waid, Ron Marz, and Gail Simone as we, Douglas Ernst and Avi Green have all documented scrupulously -- reveals unprofessionalism to the Nth degree. Where's your concern there, Tom??
I know, I know, but don't even bother. Hell, your very own Facebook thread on the Dixon issue proves our point perfectly. Just look at the aforementioned Mark Waid's childish antics (yet again) in the comments. The fact is, you don't CARE about behavior like THAT, Mr. Brevoort. Because it aligns with your own personal world view.
It's really that simple.
So, f***ing SPARE US your pathetically useless screeds about "behavior" and "professionalism." Standards only work in one direction in Bubble Land.
The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers regarding the Las Vegas shooting last week:
And, laughably, "Trust Fund" Scott is pissed off at the local sheriff out there, for calling this an isolated case and pondering a motive. This, from a true Boss Obama believer ... an admin that gave us terms like "workplace violence" and "overseas contingency operations" and constantly warns us not to assign motives for beyond-obvious jihadist actions.
A few days later: Welcome Home, Bowe Bergdahl. Be sure to read the whole thing, then remember the bullet points above. This is Boss Obama's America, folks.
Oh, and speaking of "Trust Fund" Scott, check this out. If this is in any way true -- and happens -- here's my first press conference question: "Do you really believe that 'reasonable people' can disagree as to whether George W. Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks?"
Nice to hear -- finally -- from some pros, after guys like Doug Ernst, Avi Green, Carl and myself have been doing it for years. Chuck Dixon and Paul Rivoche take to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to pen "How Liberalism Became Kryptonite for Superman." (If you Google the title you'll get around the pay wall.) In it, they note:
The 1990s brought a change. The industry weakened and eventually threw out the CCA, and editors began to resist hiring conservative artists. One of us, Chuck, expressed the opinion that a frank story line about AIDS was not right for comics marketed to children. His editors rejected the idea and asked him to apologize to colleagues for even expressing it. Soon enough, Chuck got less work.
The superheroes also changed. Batman became dark and ambiguous, a kind of brooding monster. Superman became less patriotic, culminating in his decision to renounce his citizenship so he wouldn’t be seen as an extension of U.S. foreign policy. A new code, less explicit but far stronger, replaced the old: a code of political correctness and moral ambiguity. If you disagreed with mostly left-leaning editors, you stayed silent.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, really. Much more in-depth examples are found in Colossus's comics archives, and at the aforementioned Doug Ernst and Avi Green blogs. Doug has his take on Dixon's and Rivoche's article here.
And just to throw a few examples in here, today here's our 'ol microcephalic pal Ron Marz not wasting a single minute to jump on the MSM bandwagon -- because finally it seems a shooting has fit their perpetually sought after NarrativeTM:
Well, gosh, so surprising that the people who murdered the police in Las Vegas were gun nuts and conspiracy loons. http://t.co/YIE9NQkipz— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) June 9, 2014
There's never a word from this dolt when it's a non-NarrativeTM shooting, most especially when the politics are aligned with his own.
But he cares, don'tcha know ...
And example #2: Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid:
I'll just keep saying it: You literally cannot spell "Reince Preibus" without "RNC PR BS." http://t.co/hqwXKCOVfs— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) May 30, 2014
*Sigh* Says a guy who lionizes a president for whom telling the truth is the most difficult activity imaginable.
And it's quite prevalent at ... Fox News, he says:
Read an article about spotting sociopathic behavior. Kinda scared that I can spot pretty much every trait in Fox News on-air talent.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 31, 2014
Surprise, surprise. Gotta keep up those libprog bonafides!
Got flash for 'ya Dan: I can spot sociopathic behavior too. Like when guys write stories where a genocidal murderer takes over the body of a hero ... in order to effect his usual heinous practices.
Keep residing in your comfy little bubble, you dopey little gnome.
In case idiots like this ever get their way:
Host Bill Moyers kicked off Sunday’s episode with a flashback to the previous week’s broadcast, in which scientist and environmental activist David Suzuki had announced that he believes society should literally punish politicians who don’t believe in global warming.
"Our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness. If we are in a position of being able to act, and we see something going on and we refuse to acknowledge the threat or act on it, we can be taken to court for willful blindness. I think that we are being willfully blind to the consequences for our children and grandchildren. It's an intergenerational crime," said Suzuki.
Laughably, Moyers didn't see a problem with this nut's idea; indeed, the only issue he had with it was that "there would have to be mass arrests and lots more funding for new prisons"!
I wonder how Eric Holder would feel about packing the prisons with all these victimless "criminals," given his stance recent actions regarding drug offenders.
Not much, I'd wager, as they'd probably be white Republicans.
What further evidence does one need that we've come full circle. Ages ago, righties would tell hippies "America: Love it or leave it!" and chide their lack of patriotism. Now, it's mainstream Democrat politicians who engage in that sort of stuff ... against Republicans:
Yes indeed, that is former DNC Chairman and presidential frontrunner Howard Dean saying about the GOP "They are not American," and that "They would be more comfortable in the Ukraine, or Russia, but stay away from our country."
Dean also chimed with the ludicrous yawner that Republicans "are taking away the right to vote through voter ID laws." Now, just imagine for one second Mitt Romney telling a crowd that Obama and Democrats "are not American," and that they'd be more comfortable in Castro's Cuba or the Chávez-made Venezuela." And that Democrats "want to give the right to vote to illegal immigrants and their families back home."
You know what would happen.
Interesting quote today at Robot 6 which captures comic creator Greg Rucka's thoughts on the douche who thought this shirt was appropriate for a big [comic] convention. Of course, as the ever-lovin' Furious D points out, the comics industry isn't exactly blameless when it comes to gender insensitivity, now is it?. After all, they routinely churn out material like this. And here, is it possible that many creators' shitty attitudes online are due to having to deal with "fans" on a routine basis who would wear shirts like that? Or, the other way around -- many fans' shitty attitudes are merely emulating those of many creators?
But back to Furious who nails it here: "When I was just a fledgling nerd a woman having an interest in the same things that I was interested in was viewed as a gift from Heaven." Indeed! What sort of "guy" would wear a shirt at a huge convention that exemplifies pre-fifth grade male sensibilities? Y'know, the 'ol "girls are icky" schtick? Doesn't that mind-set disappear around age 13 or so when the hormones begin moving and all of sudden you notice that girls are the greatest thing ever? Apparently not, for some.
Furthermore, don't let dopes like this turn the case of one (or more) socially inept buffoons into a cause célèbre for feminism and gender parity. Seriously -- equating the term "fangirl" with "blacks," "Jews," "Asians" or whatever? Dude, WTF.
Lastly, does anyone think if the offensive shirt had "conservatives" instead of "fangirls" there would be such an uproar? Yeah, me neither.
UPDATE: Well well WELL! Looks like the company that made the offensive shirt also offers it with "fanboy" instead of "fangirl." And has so since a year ago. But don't let stop the self-righteous!! No, no, NO. Take writer Kieron Gillen, for instance:
I'm not sure that "we profit off all kinds of hate-speech!" is much of a defense: http://t.co/hrVcp3Q3if— Kieron Gillen (@kierongillen) April 23, 2014
"Hate speech." Ye gad.
On a day when Spider-Man writer Dan Slott demonstrates he must be an obsessive-compulsive as he is still ranting about Douglas Ernst's post criticizing him from almost a year ago ... not to mention lecturing Israeli Avi Green about Muslim superheroes, we see Slott's fellow comic creator Erik Larsen retweeting the following, um, "sensitive" tweets:
Aren't these ... "lovely?"
Personally, as a non-practicing Christian and fervent believer in free expression, the above images don't bother me. What does bother me is -- you guessed it -- the brazen hypocrisy of these infantile "professionals." It just never ends. It truly is astonishing how several part-time bloggers (agree with them or not, and I don't always, for what it's worth) -- exhibit more professionalism and decorum than ... "people" like Slott and Larsen.
Erik Grove pens an op-ed today at Bleeding Cool which addresses, in part, a post of mine from yesterday. It's titled "8 Things that Need to Change in Comics – Threats, Harassment And Understanding," and not surprisingly, many of these changes need to occur from within. Let's take a look at these eight:
Grove's main point is sexual harrassment of females among the "comic community" spurred (in part) by this article regarding the supposed [in]appropriateness of a DC Comics cover. It's directed mostly at fans (the "community") but there's also this issue among the professionals. And Groves' point about hate speech and "endeavoring to understand" also needs to extend to the professionals. We've often documented here -- as have Doug Ernst and Avi Green -- how comicbook professionals (maybe I should put that term in quotes?) have often used, if not "hate" speech as it's typically defined, at the least vile speech ... and little-to-no inclination to "endeavor to understand."
Is Mark Waid telling me to "Go f*** myself" hate speech? Does it demonstrate an "endeavor to understand?" I mean, even if I was 100% wrong (I wasn't), what is up with a so-called professional responding in that manner? What about these comments?
There's also, of course, Ron Marz, Gail Simone, Erik Larsen and Dan Slott, among others. (Please venture over to Doug Ernst's place today to see how an insanely obsessed Slott is STILL ranting about Ernst's criticism of him. Check out the last update at the end of the post.) I wonder: Is a lot of their unreasonable attitude towards guys like Doug, Avi and me due to frequently dealing with ludicrous fanboy types who are completely irrational ... so that when one of us brings up a calmly worded criticism or question these guys are ready to rip our heads off? Maybe. I could see that. But, again, these guys are supposed to be professionals.
Alas, "progressivism" such as that practiced by these folks, is loaded with contradictions -- some (most?) of which aren't even noticed (or cared to be noticed). Like, for example, Grove not explicitly mentioning the comicbook professionals' behavior in "the community." And, even better, Ron Marz lamenting a lack of civility(!) regarding his article about boycotting Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. I mean, really??
Ultimately -- and ironically -- the online behavior of many of these "professionals" is astonishingly akin to that of "rabid [comicbook] fanboys" whose stereotypical image is that of egotistical, socially inept, creepy, and condescending quasi-nerds.
Despite his ultra-moonbattery (as we previously demonstrated), 'ya just gotta like Democrat Mike Dickinson, who's running for GOPer Eric Cantor's Virginia House seat. He is anything but shy and dodgy; indeed, he has absolutely NO qualms about offering up even possibly illegal "solutions" (via Twitchy):
Destroy a completely legal (and popular) group? Have the IRS go after a completely legal (and popular) political organization??
Sounds like a winning strategy to me.
Ah, Illinois. A Democrat minority legislator (I add the description as it's necessary for the whole report), a Ms. Linda Chapa LaVia, was busy ripping charter schools and "appealed to her fellow minorities within the chamber." She snarkily added “we’re all over on this side [of the aisle], right?” but Republicans took issue with that.
“Wait, we have a half. We have a half,” LaVia said. She was referring to GOP State Rep. John Anthony who is apparently half black. Isn't that soooo tolerant? Welcoming? Understanding? Empathetic?
Good thing our president is no longer in the Illinois legislature. He wouldn't rank very high in Ms. LaVia's notions of racial purity. Here's LaVia's yammering:
What's more, his donations to the "controversial" cause were leaked by the IRS to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group. Brendan Eich was recently named CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, makers of the popular Firefox web browser. What Eich did with his own money a few years back is what -- gasp! -- is so "controversial":
Why, then, the ruckus? Amazingly enough, it is entirely due to the fact that Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign urging a ‘yes’ vote on California’s Proposition 8. When this fact first came to light in 2012, after the Internal Revenue Service leaked a copy of the National Organization for Marriage’s 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group, Eich, who was then CTO of Mozilla, published a post on his personal blog stating that his donation was not motivated by any sort of animosity towards gays or lesbians, and challenging those who did not believe this to cite any“incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.”
Upon being named CEO last Wednesday, Eich immediately put up another post which among other things pledged in direct terms first that he would ensure Mozilla continued offering health benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees; second that he would allocate additional resources to a project that aims to bring more LGBTQ individuals into the technology world and Mozilla in particular; and third that he would maintain and strengthen Mozilla’s policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s worth emphasizing that Eich made this statement prior to the storm of outrage which has since erupted, and that with these policies and others Mozilla easily ranks among the most gay-friendly work environments in the United States.
It wasn't enough. Eich resigned yesterday. Amazingly, numerous employees had taken to social media to call for Eich's ouster. How d'ya like that? The supposedly "tolerant" employees call for their boss and part founder of the company for which they work ... to leave??
Because he donated to a campaign promoting traditional marriage.
You see, it's not enough in today's society to believe as Eich does -- favoring traditional marriage yet simultaneously holding anti-discriminatory views about gays. I wonder if Eich has an issue with gay civil unions; I would doubt that he does, based on the quote and statements above. A Google search did not provide anything specific. Granting Eich has no issue with civil unions (and California's Prop 8 had nothing to do with [gay] civil unions, by the way, just the definition of the term "marriage"), that still would have been insufficient for the gay lobby. Don't agree? Then see here. Even though civil unions would [have] confer[red] precisely the same governmental benefits as traditional marriage, the gay lobby argues it would "relegate [gays] to second-class citizenship, maybe third-class -- and that's not enough." And it's about rights and not politics? Uh huh: "Being married and wearing a wedding ring sends a message to society," said Jeffrey Zarrillo, one of the plaintiffs who sought to overturn Prop. 8.
Lastly, here's Andrew Sullivan (who, if you don't know, is gay):
Will he (Eich) now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
I simply await the day when a socialist/leftist who harbors sympathies with, say, Maduro in Venezuela, or Castro in Cuba, or Morales in Bolivia is hounded and forced out of his/her job. Oh wait -- that sounds like 1950s McCarthyism?? BINGO.
Douglas Ernst has more on this.
UPDATE: Business Insider and Slate reporters call Eich's donation to Prop 8 as akin "to someone who 'donated some money to the KKK'" and said that "support of traditional marriage to supporting the 'the civil right to own slaves.'" I'm surprised they omitted that it was like the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Sheesh.
UPDATE 2: James Taranto contradicts the earlier report that the IRS was the culprit behind the revelation of Eich's Prop 8 donation. He notes that Califorina law requires "disclosure of personal information–name, address, occupation and employer’s name–of anybody who gives $100 or more to a campaign for or against a ballot initiative."
Weird Salon interview with @suey_park where she says intelligent things and every attempt is made to make her seem incoherent. Point?— Gail Thorkenstonen (@GailSimone) April 3, 2014
OK, well, I lied about "no comment." Go to Doug Ernst's to see why Ms. Park certainly needs NO help (or "editing") to sound incoherent. And besides, why would Salon.com, of all places, do such a thing? I mean, this is the site that gave us this masterpiece!
"What Can Educators do to End White Supremacy in the Classroom?" Yes, this was more-or-less the title of a workshop at the 15th Annual White Privilege Conference hosted by Madison, Wisconsin this year. It was led by Kim Radersma, a former high school English teacher in California and Colorado. who's "currently working toward her PhD in critical whiteness studies at Brock University in Ontario, Canada." Critical. Whiteness. Studies. You can get a doctorate in that. And the only job available is in the Perpetual Grievance Industry.
Radersma compared being white to being an alcoholic: "What's the first step? Admitting you have a problem." The problem? Whites "carry within [themselves] ... dark, horrible thoughts and perceptions." She became "enlightened," so to speak, while teaching a lower-level English course which was composed entirely of "student of color." The Advanced Placement English course, was composed of all whites and Asians. (Remember, Asians do not count as "people of color" to these nimrods.) She notes,
That experience, and the fact that her boss did not know how to tackle the problem, led her to leave the classroom and work toward her Ph. D. Radersma told the group she realized the problem was the institutionalized racist structure of education and her white privilege was causing the racial achievement gap.
Naturally, the fact that the students in her class weren't prepared for an Advanced Placement class has absolutely nothing to do with what she saw at that school. And, natch, the real reasons for such a lack of preparation.
The rest of the article is an endless stream of far-left racialist garbage. If you can stomach it by all means read the whole thing. I almost became physically ill knowing there are actually people out there like this Radersma buffoon. I'll leave you with this lovely quote from her:
"If you don't want to work for equity, get the fuck out of education," Radersma said. "If you are not serious about being an agent of change that helps stifle the oppressive systems, go find another job. Because you are a political figure."
Andrew Johnson at The Corner reports on the latest -- Iowa Democratic Senate candidate Bruce Braley diss of Chuck Grassley, suggesting the GOP senator "isn't qualified" because he doesn't have a law degree. Braley later apologized, but Charles Cooke notes a "progressive" website that refers to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as "College Dropout Scott Walker." Cooke notes,
I don’t care whether you love or loathe Scott Walker and his politics, the use of “college dropout” as a pejorative is absurd. The increasing fetishization of education is leading us all to some pretty bizarre places, not the least of which is to the conflation of one’s educational achievement and one’s intellect or worth.
Indeed. Maybe Boss Obama could lead the way by releasing his college transcripts so we could see Just how "smart" he really is. Another example of what Cooke is talking about is Sheila Jackson-Lee, whose education includes UVA law school. This cretin thinks the US Constitution is 400-some years old, and can't even put a coherent English sentence together. (And that's just for starters.) And what about Rep. Hank Johnson, another law school graduate, who once hilariously worried about the island of Guam tipping over if too many Marines were stationed on it?
How can one forget Delaware's own Joe Biden? Here's yet another law school graduate whose list of microcephalic utterances may know no equal. One of my favorites is this, regarding AZ Rep. Gabby Giffords: "Gabby Giffords, my good friend, was shot and mortally wounded.” Except she's, y'know, still alive. And doing quite well.
Just as Hillary Clinton plans to make climate change a big part of her 2016 campaign, I sure do hope Democrats attempt to portray Republicans as stupid. It'll make folks look like the entire Boss Obama administration -- "progressive" elitists who think they know it all, yet in practice are complete idiots. (Um, just look at the last six years.) It's like those who like to point out that those who watch Fox News rank lowest in terms of overall education -- what these buffoons omit is that, unlike the vast majority of the LIV American public (a majority of whom voted for Obama), at least the FNC-watching folks are interested in the news, and don't rely exclusively on quick sound-bites (if on anything at all) like Boss Obama's Lie of the Year, or tweets / Facebook posts which frequently carry nary a nugget of truth.
Forty People Who Called Mitt Romney "Bossy" during the 2012 Campaign. Once again, many "progressives" just make sh** up in order to have a cause, in this case the word "bossy" is an epithet aimed at women. Except, y'know, that it's not. We showed that already:
And much more recently are these examples contra the GOP presidential candidate of 2012:
People who knew Romney in past said he was bossy and pedantic, acc. to the NYT piece on his Mormonism. After #cnndebate I can see why.— Mark Giangreco, Jr. (@GNgreco) October 19, 2011
I think why Romney is so bossy and autocratic, is because he is a Mormon Bishop being over a bunch of people telling them what to do!— Dustyo (@Dustyo87) January 13, 2012
Color me shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you! And best of all:
.@Dooezer Pundits are calling Ann Romney's recent attitude "sassy, bossy, and Beyoncésque."— Aaron Miller (@AaronDMiller) October 7, 2012
The irony is delicious.
We've certainly had our experiences with Mark Waid's anger issues, with fellow blogger Doug Ernst asking him once straight up "Why are you so angry?" Instead of getting an answer, we were blocked (on Twitter). It seems Waid's anger hasn't subsided; indeed, it's gotten worse -- so much so that the Twitter compilation site Twitchy took notice:
Repubs who bitch about Obama "wasting time" on Between 2 Ferns while their party votes 51 TIMES to repeal Obamacare can go fuck themselves.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) March 12, 2014
Boy, we're familiar with that sort of lingo from Waid, aren't we? He really likes that phrase "Go f*** yourself," doesn't he? And let's go for that race card while we're at it, natch:
@joekeatinge Well, he IS Black.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) March 12, 2014
And best of all, he tells someone not to buy his stuff because his poor widdle self was "attacked" by someone with the AUDACITY to disagree with him:
@juddemerson Seriously, fuck off. Please never read my comics again. I don't need money from someone who attacks me out of nowhere.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) March 12, 2014
Hey, no problem, Mark. We'll happily oblige -- and we'll tell all our friends to do the same ... and about what an intolerant, angry jerkoff you are.
Elsewhere, Marvel's Tom Brevoort, who likes to talk a lot about diversity, yet won't act and step aside so that his old, white guy self can be replaced with someone of the appropriate color, attempts to discredit Bosch Fawstin, a born/raised-and-now-reformed Muslim, because, y'know, DIVERSITY (or something):
@BoschFawstin It sounds like you know nothing about it as well, apart from jingoistic rhetoric.— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) March 11, 2014
Brevoort's ultimate recourse? Block them. Y'know, because someone who disagrees with a "progressive" is anathema. Especially when he's made you look foolish:
A sad day on Twitter--actually reached the point where I used the block function, after all these years.— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) March 12, 2014
It's a lot easier than thinking, Tom. (Sadly, Brevoort is Delaware native. But he'd fit in perfectly again here, given its solid blue nature.)
Our pal Gail "The Movement was Canceled" Simone retweets this gem from Media Matters:
On CNN, @PaulBegala calls out right-wing guest's Benghazi hypocrisy: "How many died in the 13 attacks under Bush and you didn't say a peep?"— Media Matters (@mmfa) March 8, 2014
Of course Gail, being the complete LIV that she is, wouldn't likely know that the important thing in this whole deal isn't how many died, but how and why they died. Why wasn't the counsulate equipped with more security after requests? And even more shockingly, why was a man thrown in jail for making the video on which the attacks were [falsely] blamed?
As you'd expect, the post brought out the true moonbattery:
Elsewhere, a fan realizes how futile it is to disagree with a 'bat like Ron Marz, because, well, he's just "smarter" than you, dammit!
Ron Marz can't have a conversation on twitter on a subject he disagrees w/ u on without being a total dick. I may have 2 add him 2 my list.— Jason (@IKILLALLWALKERS) March 8, 2014
Yep, "total dick" about cuts it. That's how the radical moonbats roll, unfortunately. Disagreement with them is worse than an al Qaeda terror attack.
UPDATE: Speaking of Marz, here he is on Dr. Ben Carson, a guy who has about 100 IQ pts. on him:
Oh, man, now Ben Carson is trending. There really is no straw the conservatives won't grasp.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) March 8, 2014
There's nothing more threatening to a white "progressive" than a potential black candidate who goes against everything he holds dear ...
Delaware's own gaffe-laden son utilized what by now is a tiresome, yawn-inducing line yesterday: That voter ID laws are "hatred of black people."
"These guys never go away. Hatred never, never goes away," Biden said during a reception commemorating African-American History Month at the Naval Observatory, according to a pool report. "The zealotry of those who wish to limit the franchise cannot be smothered by reason."
If this is "reasonable," then Plugs, Boss Obama, and the entire Democratic Party must hate African-Americans -- and especially Hispanics -- since a requirement for utilizing ObumbleCare is showing an ID. Not to mention, the Spanish language ObumbleCare website has been riddled with myriad language and grammar errors.
Doesn't this crowd repeatedly tell us that health care is a right? Then why the onerous requirement of mandating a photo ID for these populations which are less likely to possess one, huh??
*Sigh* Anyone who takes this administration even remotely seriously anymore is just a demagogic true believer.
Co-host of Fox News Channel's "The Five" Bob Beckel on the UAW's loss at the Tennessee Volkswagen plant:
“Let’s face it, Volkswagen has the kind of unionization it does because V.W. had a long, storied history with Hitler and the Nazis. You can’t raise these things because history — history dictates a lot of things! If you don’t think Volkswagen had a long, storied history with the Nazis, it’s the reason that they got unionized. It’s the first company to unionize in Germany, when the Americans took over.”
Waddya think? Silliest invocation of Godwin's Law ever?
Mike Dickinson, the Democratic challenger to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is really a piece of work. He seems to revel in tweeting how the FCC should get in there and regulate dastardly Fox News for "telling nothing but lies":
Wow haha. We stirred the pot by saying Fox News needed regulation for telling nothing but lies. Many Foxheads came out the woodwork. Good.— DickinsonForCongress (@VoteMike2014) February 18, 2014
Dickinson is the real deal true believer, folks. He goes further:
Fox News does nothing but tell lies and mistruths. They have unqualified political analysts. We need FCC to monitor and regulate them.— DickinsonForCongress (@VoteMike2014) February 18, 2014
Cheeyeah. Somebody tell Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Catherine Herridge, among others.
Lastly, the coup de grâce:
Fully support first amendment. News is news, entertainment is entertainment. Fox News is in the later category.— DickinsonForCongress (@VoteMike2014) February 18, 2014
But he fully supports the First Amendment!!
Be sure to click the link above to see the rest of the douchebag's tweets. Moonbat entertainment at its finest.
MSNBC resident microcephalic Chris Matthews yesterday: "Let me finish tonight with something that's been bothering me. Why do people hate this president so much?"
*Sigh* Of course, it's not hate. It is, as with anything else political, a disagreement and if anything else, a dislike. Ignore Matthews' absolutely false narrative as to why people (mostly GOPers and conservatives) "hate" Boss Obama; here's the real scoop (as if any loyal Colossus readers really need this, eh?) including many recent occurrences/revelations:
Make no mistake -- this is a "f*** you" appointment by Boss Obama. And if confirmed, you can bet Adegbile will try to do still more about Abu-Jamal. Is a Boss Obama pardon for the cop killer in the works? Why not? It'd just be one more middle finger he's given the American people.
The list could go on and on, natch. Benghazi. Fast and Furious. Unilaterally altering laws. And Matthews knows -- KNOWS -- if Obama was a Republican he's be in grave danger of impeachment about now.
Via Doug Ernst: This shouldn't surprise a soul:
Buzzfeed Editor Editor Peter Lauria: I have noticed that most of the guests are mostly white males. Of 22 episodes you’ve had —
Seinfeld: Yeah, let’s get into that. Take a look over here, Peter. What do you see? A lot of whiteys! What’s going on here?!
Oh, this really pisses me off. This really pisses me off, but go ahead. [...] There were a lot of things about ‘Comedians and Cars’ from the very beginning — the first ten I did were all white males and people were writing all about that. People think it’s the census or something. It’s gotta represent the actual pie chart of America. Who cares? Funny is the world that I live in. You’re funny, I’m interested. You’re not funny, I’m not interested. I have no interest in gender or race or anything like that, but everyone else is kind of calculating ‘Is this the exact right mix?’ To me it’s anti-comedy. It’s anti-comedy. It’s more about PC nonsense than “Are you making us laugh or not?”
In response, complete dolt Kyle Chayka at Gawker says Seinfeld is a racist:
Jerry Seinfeld, the most successful comedian in the world and maker of comedy for and about white people, isn't interested in trying to include non-white anything in his work.
Which is too bad, because Seinfeld is downplaying the work of everyone from Richard Pryor and Bill Cosby to Aziz Ansari, Mindy Kaling, and Eddie Huang, who are all in various stages of their own sitcoms that just might turn out to be the next Seinfeld.
In conclusion: Yes, comedy should represent the entire pie chart of America, and the glorious, multicolored diversity pie should be thrown directly at Jerry Seinfeld's face.
Hmm. Let's see what sort of "multicolored diverse" articles Mr. Chayka has written of late:
Of course, you see how utterly ridiculous this is. And for "progressives" like Buzzfeed's Lauria and Gawker's Chayka, "multi-colored" and "diversity" are only necessary when it comes to Caucasians. Unless, that is, when it comes to applying the concept to themselves. (See also here and here.)
Maybe next Chayka can do an article on this worthy topic: Using white paper can cause racism in young children. I sh** you not. So says, natch, an “early years consultant who advises local authorities on equality and diversity.”
The very best thing we can do to such complete nonsense is just what Seinfeld did -- laugh at them and look 'em in the eye and tell 'em how f***ing ridiculous they are.
Yes! what Mark Blake says. Arrest and prosecute those Conservatives with illegal firearms….
You ran too easily. no one said guns have particular political affiliations. Just like cars don’t have political affiliations. Unlike guns, Conservatives DO have political affiliations. If you do a close reading of my text, you will notice I am talking about Conservatives, not guns.
If Benedict Arnold were alive today, and trying to underpin America by selling us out to another foreign power, would anyone be on his side? That is what conservatives are doing. Selling out the American Middle Class to 1% of the population who couldn’t care less about America.
For that reason, any Conservative should be arrested and prosecuted for possession of illegal firearms… Just as one would arrest Benedict Arnold….. or any other Tory walking through the countryside in 1782….
If no judicial court be handy, rolling them in hot tar until they scream, and then cooling them off in chicken feathers, would be a good secondary alternative….
Bottom line; no difference between Benedict Arnold and say, Sean Hannity.
How many times have we said it? Too many to count: "Progressives" don't just view their American ideological opponents as just that -- fellow citizens with differing points of view. They view them as the enemy. Evil. To be extinguished. They're even worse than, say, al Qaeda.
Remember the good 'ol times when "progressives" screamed for free speech, and how "dissent was patriotic"? Remember how toxic phrases like "America -- love it or leave it" were? But now that they've gotten power, to hell with all of those concepts. Free speech from conservatives has to squelched "for the greater good." Dissent is now, like kavips says, traitorous. If you disagree with "progressives" now, leave America.
kavips doesn't sound any different than this mental midget. No wonder she enjoys commenting where she does.
... if he suggested that the BET Awards stage a drive-by. Think it'd be "funny" then?
"Thug" and "street cred." Especially the former, because that is the "new 'N word.'" And of all people, Bill Maher says so:
"I think it's a very creative way to point out that racism has really kind of gone underground in this country," Maher said. The comedian then said he believed that whenever whites "see a black guy they don't like: thug."
"Because it's socially unacceptable now--unlike when it once was--to say the 'N-word,'" he said. "So that's sort of the word that they use instead."
Charles Barkley said that "street cred," as noted, is a racial slur, too. But it's Maher who has one big pair of stones to say what he did. This -- from the guy who has used some of the vilest language imaginable to trash people he doesn't like. Anyone recall him calling Sarah Palin a "c**t"?
Even while acknowledging that the IDs are generally issued by states for free, Sharpton cited Attorney General Eric Holder and Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis in complaining that simply having to travel to obtain the free ID amounts to a tax.
We've been through this sort of bullsh** before. WTF is next -- a stamp on an envelope to get a voter registration form is a "poll tax?" Why yes, as a matter of fact according to Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings. Unfortunately for both Hastings and Sharpton, even the left-leaning PolitiFact (see last link) rates as "mostly false" that voter ID laws amount to a poll tax.
Elsewhere, race-obsessed Attorney General Eric Holder spoke out (again) against voter ID laws. “They’ve come up with a remedy in search of a problem,” Holder told MSNBC on Friday. “I think it is being used in too many instances to depress the vote of particular groups of people ..." He also said that in a "vacuum" he would support such laws ... Cheeyeah, sort of like he would support school disciplinary measures "in a vacuum," eh? Puh-lease.
-- New York City's new [communist] mayor, Bill De Blasio, agrees with the recent "F*** you, Righties" sentiments of New York Governor Andy Cuomo. Is that surprising??
-- Did I mention Eric Holder already? Well, he is sticking by his "nation of cowards when it comes to race" comment from 2009. “Certain subjects are off-limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment, and at worst, the questioning of one’s character,” he said. He's certainly right about that -- but not in the way he thinks.
-- The MSM keeps George Zimmerman in the news, this time because George -- gasp!! -- did a painting based on an AP photograph. The photog is threatening to sue Zimmerman. This is big news, folks.
-- Lastly, io9 has a list of Marvel comics the company probably wish they'd never had published. Included are "winners" we've covered previously like U.S. 1 and NFL Superpro.
As we posted back here, some fans of Simone's comic The Movement were miffed that the TV show Arrow (based on the DC character Green Arrow) utilized a group by the same name who were a bunch of terrorists. We wrote "Isn't that pretty much the case?" and posted several images from various Occupy Wall Street demonstrations exhibiting violence, clashes with law enforcement, and holding up placards advocating violence and anti-Semitism. It seems The Movement aficionados are still miffed:
But that's how the feds see the Movement, as terrorists. @fodigg— Gail Cup Avenger (@GailSimone) January 23, 2014
So, Simone believes the feds view Occupy Wall Streeters as "terrorists?" Hmmm, well the head of "the feds" is a guy named Barack Obama, and here's his view on the Occupiers:
President Obama on Thursday called the "Occupy Wall Street" protests a reflection of a "broad-based frustration about how our financial system works" and pledged to continue fighting to protect American consumers.
"I think it (Occupy Wall Street) expresses the frustrations that the American people feel. I think people are frustrated."
Does that sound like the feds view "The Movement" as "terrorists?" Quite the contrary, actually. On the other hand, again, look at how comics treated that other protest movement known as the Tea Party:
“A grassroots anti-government army”
“I don’t exactly see a black man from harlem fitting in with a bunch of angry white folks…”
And our president's view on them? Well, let's see: The IRS targeted the Tea Party and similar groups for years. Powerful Obama allies even actively advocate this action. Obama thinks race plays a "key component" in Tea Party protests. And -- wait for it! -- the White House itself used the term "terrorists" for Republicans and groups that agree with them ... because they want federal spending cuts. Numerous Democrats have repeatedly used the term "terrorist" to describe Tea Party Republicans. And lastly -- are you ready for this? -- Obama supporters view the Tea Party as a bigger terror threat than ... radical Islamists!
All this, and the Tea Party has never engaged in the sorts of actions that the Occupy Movement has. Violence. Rape. Depravity. Property damage. Anti-Semitism.
But ... Gail Simone thinks our government views the Occupy Wall Street Movement as the "terrorists." Still yet another example of a "progressive" living in "the bubble" where The NarrativeTM never changes.
UPDATE: It's entirely possible Simone, in her tweet above, is referring to the feds of Arrow and how they view The [fictitious] Movement. But considering how the comicbook version is based on OWS, one would have grant us some leeway if we mis (or over) interpreted Simone's remarks.
I would ask "Is it me?" but I know it's not. Becoming ever-more commonplace is "progressives'" predilection for outright invoking pure fantasy in place of actual fact. Months ago (and perhaps still) the most egregious example was Boss Obama's oft-repeated LIE that "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." You all (meaning, rational, clear-thinking folk) then saw how quickly the "progressive" minions took to media to defend -- defend -- this complete falsehood. It was hysterical ... and pathetically sad.
More recently, now-Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis (most "famous" for last year standing up against that state's proposed more restrictive abortion law) has been caught red-handedly LYING about her past, and her supposed "hardships." Among these are how she was a "struggling" single mom who picked herself up by her bra-straps and made it to Harvard Law School. Except ... the FACTS say otherwise. She essentially married a "sugar daddy" who paid for her schooling, and whom she promptly divorced as soon as she got her degree. And this ex got custody of their (and Davis' from a previous marriage)
children child (the other child was already an adult).
But does Davis acknowledge any of this? Aside from a very lame "my language could have been 'tighter,'" absolutely not. In fact, she's doubling down against people bringing this up, calling it a "personal attack" and bringing up the ridiculously tiresome "war on women." But worst of all, she blamed her opponent for much of the attacks, and stated that challenger Greg Abbott "hasn’t walked a day in my shoes." Aside from the FACT that this implies that FALSE hardship Davis "experienced," it's insanely insulting since ... Abbott has been in a wheelchair for 30 years.
Good luck, sweetie.
Elsewhere in the Empire State, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is pulling a Davis-esque maneuver in blaming everyone else for his own stupidity. But mainly that dastardly New York Post because it called the gov out on his ridiculous lingo when he said that "extreme" conservatives (what conservative isn't, really, to a "progressive?") "have no place in the state of New York." To him personally, "extreme" apparently means "right-to-life (against abortion), pro-assault-weapon (believe in 2nd Amendment), [and] anti-gay (believe in traditional marriage)." I can give Andy some leeway on that last one as there surely are "extreme" rightists who detest gay Americans, and maybe that is indeed what he meant. But I doubt it, given the other two on his list. I mean, really -- "pro-assault weapon" is just silly. "Progressives" believe any gun is an "assault weapon." There are so many examples of these idiots getting the definition wrong you can't keep count. But worst of all -- being pro-life is "extreme??" So much so that you shouldn't step one foot in Andy's state?
Cuomo said this. Instead of issuing a statement saying something like "he didn't mean it as it came out," his office hits back with FALSEHOODS: that original NY Post article author "Fred Dicker is an extreme conservative." That "Fred Dicker(!!) has angered many with what has been reported as 'hateful' comments." That the gov meant "New York is a politically moderate state and an extremist agenda is not politically viable statewide." And most hilariously of all, a plea to "Let's discuss relevant issues rationally."
(Democrats and other "progressives" would like to remind you, also, at this time: "CHRIS CHRISTIE!!!")
I sure hope the GOP (and others) are taking notes and paying close attention. In fact, if I were running for office I'd openly mock these two lemons and others -- and the liberal press -- by making a statement, and then immediately claiming I didn't say what I said. And then I'd get angry at any reporter for claiming I did say what I said. And then I'd issue a press release clamoring for "civility" and "rational discussion."
Who to invite to the 30th Annual MLK Breakfast? Why, none other than Boss Obama's "spiritual mentor," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And, as could easily be predicted, the rev couldn't resist his usual ridiculous antics:
Tell your children we have some unfinished business on the agenda with the voting rights bill gutted by a right-wing dominated Supreme Court … with mass incarceration robbing black and brown communities of any positive future … with jobs being shipped overseas … with one branch of the tea party being nothing but a 2.0 upgrade of the lynch mobs … with some folks doing everything they can to get that black man out of their White House.
When he was done, the rev got a standing O, and was "swarmed" by an adoring crowd.
Meanwhile, the city continues to suffer from out-of-control violence, not to mention family and societal breakdown, but Wright thinks one of the biggest threats to black Americans is ... the Tea Party. But hey, WTF can one expect from the guy whose church put out a pamphlet which stated
... Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs?
Wright doesn't seem to like Jews much. When asked if he had spoken to Boss Obama a few months after the latter's 2008 election, he said, "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me." He's also the guy who used the anniversary of the Dec. 7 Pearl Harbor attack to rip the United States for using its A-bombs to end the war which the Japanese started. Oh, and don't forget his praising of the "no-nonsense Marxism" of the communist FSLN (Nicaragua) and FMLN (El Salvador).
RELATED: After a mere year on the job, the Wilmington Chief of Police (the first woman appointed to the gig) is retiring. I don't blame her one damn bit.
Fox News reporter Adam Housley is married to Sister, Sister star Tamera Mowry. So, what is the big deal? Well, Housley is white, and Mowry, [half] black. That is a problem in this day and age? Apparently so. If you're a "progressive" reading this, I'm sure you're all upset about those evil, racist Tea Party types for making an issue of this couple's marriage, Correct? Not quite:
In a recent interview with OWN, an emotional Mowry said she has “never experienced so much hate ever in my life.” She said she gets called “white man’s whore” and receives comments like “back in the day you cost $300, but now you’re giving it to him for free.”
She added that an especially hurtful remark she saw online involved her twin sister, Tia who is married to actor Cory Hardrict. 'They say, 'Oh, Tia's a true black woman because she married a black man,' Tamera said. 'Oh – I'm less of a black person because I married white?' (Source, source.)
Maybe it's because Mowry married ... someone who works at Fox News.
As Michelle Malkin (who has endured her own fair share of racial epithets at the hands of "tolerant progressives") notes, "We’re leaning backward in the regressive Age of Hope and Change." She reminds us of the racial hatred exhibited in the mainstream media over notable black-white marriages -- where at least one party is conservative:
And remember -- if a [black] student says something like the above in a public school, forget about any disciplinary measures for harassment/bullying/etc. That would be discriminatory.
The Boss Obama administration, which "won't tell Congress what resources it is devoting to the IRS probe" ... and "has also doubled down by expanding the political vetting of 501(c)(4) groups seeking tax-exempt status," wasted not a second in "leak[ing] to the media that the U.S. Attorney is investigating the [New Jersey] lane closures as a criminal matter." That's the scandal currently enveloping NJ Gov. Chris Christie.
The mainstream media has the sort of scandal it always desires -- one involving a high profile Republican. There's already been a ton more MSM coverage of Christie's issues than the last six months of the IRS matter. Yet, as the Wall Street Journal notes, "compared to using the IRS against political opponents during an election campaign, closing traffic lanes for four days is jaywalking." (For good measure, take a gander: There's CNN idiot Piers Morgan comparing "Trafficgate" to ... Richard Nixon and the original "gate" -- Watergate.)
The media -- which for seven years made George W. Bush's "transgressions" against the Constitution (Gitmo, "enhanced interrogation," NSA spying, black sites, etc.) appear to be evil incarnate, has said nary a word in the last five years about Boss Obama's continuation -- and expansion -- of same. That, along with the other abuses of power like the IRS targeting, changing ObumbleCare unilaterally, and lying for several years about it. Keep all this in mind the next time a Republican is in the White House: The current Chris Christie scandal is what we're in for. Boss Obama and his acolytes are so brazen these days (thanks to the complicit MSM) that instances like these -- where the Democrat Party chairperson says with a straight face that Christie's political scandal is worse than Boss Obama's scandals -- aren't guffawed at as they should be.
Remember: To the media and the Boss Obama LIV crowd, when a "progressive" like President Lemon is in charge, it matters NOT what they do. He MEANS well. Anything he does, no matter how outrageous, illegal, or scandalous, comes without consequences. Because, again, he's "GOOD." Republicans are, as noted previously, evil incarnate. Anything they do has malevolent intent.
Comicbook writer Ed Brubaker ironically tweets:
Here's a real question: Can you still enjoy an artist's work if you find out they're an asshole later?— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) January 2, 2014
Some responses by some of our "buddies":
@brubaker I think it's hard to enjoy it if they're contemporary, and still working. Easier to look past someone being a jerk 100 years ago.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 2, 2014
@brubaker I have a whole bunch of people whose work I can't enjoy any more because of racist or homophobic statements.— Gail Oakenpants (@GailSimone) January 2, 2014
After many answers, Brubaker subsequently tweeted
So the answers seem to be: Yes, no, it depends on the art/depends on how big an asshole/depends on the time they lived.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) January 2, 2014
To be fair, at least Marz (and Dan Slott) have stated that they are aware of the [business] chance they take by being outspoken on certain matters (usually political). But, once again, it's one thing to spout off on matters political, and another to be, as Brubaker pondered, a jerk about it. It would matter much less to me (and I'd be a lot more inclined to buy their stuff) if people like Marz, Slott and Simone tweeted left-wing politics ... but were a lot more gracious/respectful towards dffering opinions. Not to sound like a broken a record, but, y'know, Michael Jordan's 1990 comment about Republicans buying shoes, too, and all ...
"Comedienne" Natasha Leggero, appearing with Carson Daly during part of NBC's New Year's celebration, made a "joke" about Pearl Harbor survivors "gumming" their food now: "... it sucks that the only survivors of Pearl Harbor are being mocked by the only food they can still chew. It's just sad."
Wow. This, coupled with sister station MSNBC's mocking of Mitt Romney's adopted black grandchild, and the network is starting off the new year as the epitome of class. But to those living in the comfortable bubble of everyone-agrees-with-me "progressivism," such brazen insensitivity and offensiveness is to be completely overlooked and/or ignored. For example, here's what Superior Spider-Man writer Dan "Setting the Record Straight" Slott "humorously" tweeted last night:
Sorry. Just got a memo from Fox News. It's "Merry New Year." Or you're declaring a war on New Year's Eve.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) January 1, 2014
Yeah, because, while using a hyperbolic term like "war" is a little over the top, highlighting inane instances that happen every year across the country where (typically) a few local school officials ridiculously overreact to the federal holiday of Christmas (usually in the name of the "progressive" religion of "diversity/tolerance") is, well, stupid.
If Slott somehow sees/hear about this post, he'll most likely stick to form as he did here and clamor that he is balanced, has conservative friends, yada yada yada. But he's already on record stating that Fox "has no equal when it comes to sleaze." Let's see: Using the term "War" on Christmas vs. mocking an adopted black grandchild, and Pearl Harbor veterans having to gum their food now. In Slott-world, the former has "no equal" in the sleaze dept.
It seems the new year certainly won't change the stupidity and knee-slapping hypocrisy of many contemporary comicbook folk and NBC talking heads.
After her show's pathetic segment yesterday where everyone giggled and made political hay out of Mitt Romney's adopted black grandchild, MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry has apologized. But this wasn't before frequent cable show talking head and "hip hop professor" Marc Lamont Hill jumped into the fray:
Still, it's totally reasonable to tease Romney and question his motives. He's a public figure. That's not the same as mocking a kid.— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) December 31, 2013
As you might surmise, Hill was ripped with replies, many pointing out the hypocrisy (gee, who'd thunk?) of a guy who has repeatedly pondered the "racism" of various criticisms of President Obama.
Well, not really. Remember two things: 1) It's perfectly OK for "progressives" to laugh, mock and giggle at stuff like this, and 2) Republicans/conservatives no matter what will never "win" on racial matters. Anyone remember Mitt Romney's protested sojourn to downtown Philly in 2012? To coin a cliché, "Damned if you, damned if you don't." Mitt was welcome in Philly -- as long as he agreed with "progressive" Democrats there. Yeesh, if there ever was a pattern ...
Giggling all the way, we heard
“Any captions for this one?” Harris-Perry asked her panel.
“One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same,” sang panelist Pia Glenn, adding, “And that little baby, front and center, would be the one.”
Comedian Dean Obeidallah told Harris-Perry that he thought the photo was “great” and that “it really sums up the diversity of the Republican party, the RNC. At the convention, they find the one black person.”
Hilariously, at vid's end, Harris-Perry tells us to stay tuned for the segment "Hey! Was that Racist?" ... apparently never grasping the irony.
UPDATE: "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same": Here's a pic of Harris-Perry with her parents. She says, “I’ve never thought of myself as biracial. I’m black.” Of course.
Via ABC News: 2013: The Year Everyone Gave Hillary Clinton an Award. But that ain't the funny part. This is:
In October, pop star and AIDS activist Elton John presented Clinton with his signature award for her commitment to human rights at a benefit attended by the likes of Billy Joel, Alec Baldwin, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Lisa Marie Presley and Courtney Love.
Alec Baldwin? This Alec Baldwin??
Alec spewed the nasty words at a paparazzi camped outside his NYC apartment Thursday, calling him a "c**ksucking f*g".
In June, he lashed out at a British reporter, calling him "a toxic little queen" among other things.
The Elton John Foundation’s Founders’ Award was awarded to the former First Lady, New York Senator, and Secretary of State because “she’s a great human rights campaigner for people of color, for people of sexual orientation.” I'm sure she was so tickled that someone like Baldwin, who "shares" her commitment, was in attendance.
Today, Trimnell has still more following some e-mail queries as to whether he was going to "force [Scalzi] out into the open." Ed, of course, says "no" (that isn't his concern, after all), but what was interesting is that he links to an article by "Mrs. Instapundit," Helen Smith, regarding Scalzi's treatise from earlier this year in which he says "white guys have it so easy." I was unaware of Dr. Helen's post at the time, but it's telling she wrote about it because Scalzi and her husband, Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, are supposed to be pals. At any rate, Helen wrote of Scalzi's conclusion:
I say “bullshit.” Straight white men are today’s whipping boy. Scalzi’s fawning commenters start out telling him how brilliant his little essay is while this Uncle Tim and some (but not all–some commenters fight back) of his sycophants eat it up.
In my upcoming book with Encounter Publishing entitled “Male Strike: Why Society’s War Against Men is Suicidal and What to Do About It,” I discuss these Uncle Tim types (those who put down other men) whose life is made easier by pandering to women and other men who are either Uncle Tims themselves or White Knights trying to save a damsel in distress. There is always a benefit to putting down straight white males. What’s yours, Scalzi?
She links to this site, which has a very good response to the author as well. Best line from it?
But the problem with Scalzi's piece isn't his metaphor or his condescension: it's their implication. SWMs (straight white males) must be properly silent and guilty for who they are, or they're assholes. Expendable.
Personally, I have less of an issue with Scalzi's [questionable] point(s) than with his condescension and snark. Like the usual comicbook cadre, I truly am at a loss to figure why these folks act the way they do when their career depends upon selling their wares to the public. Such relies on public goodwill and relations. As I've said ad nauseam, why in the world would anyone patronize a person who spits in your face?? I've bought all of Scalzi's Old Man's War novels, including the latest, The Human Division. But y'know what? That's probably the last one I'll purchase. Even if Scalzi wrote something that was WAY out there (say, like Communism is the greatest governmental system in the history of man), I'd still be inclined to buy his stuff ... as long as he treated those who disagree with him politely and amicably. Or, just ignored them.
And I know I've said this before, too: Is it because guys like Scalzi have "made it" that they don't care anymore -- about how they come across to the public? I mean, unlike comicbooks, which is a slowly dying medium (and may explain why guys like Ron Marz act the way they do online), science fiction novels, it seems to me, will continue to flourish for quite some time.
I just don't get it.
The big thing today is writer/blogger/reformed Muslim Bosch Fawstin's article at PJ Media titled 10 Truths Mainstream Comic Books Evade To Promote ‘Muslim Superheroes.' Bosch is extremely passionate, and takes no prisoners. You may remember how Marvel is rebranding the title Ms. Marvel with the title hero a Muslim with super powers. Bosch discusses this and a lot more; it's a must-read.
I sort of got a kick out of this, linked to by Bosch. Blogger J. Caleb Mozzocco couldn't understand why no one was reading JLA/The 99. The 99 was (is) an all-Muslim super-team who got their powers "through magical Noor stones," and the team name comes from the ninety-nine attributes of Allah. Mozzocco writes
I did experience a new emotion while reading this installment of the sales analysis though, beyond the usual shades of the gray and blue rainbow of sadness I generally get from the chart—shock.
Specifically, I’m shocked at how poorly JLA/The 99 seems to be selling in the direct market.
They received about as much press coverage as any comic book characters could hope to. In the six-issue miniseries JLA/The 99, the new heroes team up with The Justice League of America, the DC super-team (usually) composed of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and the most popular and well-known superheroes who aren’t owned by Marvel.
It started off selling pretty poorly, and, in just four issues, is selling half as many copies.
Well, as Bosch says in his article, it won't matter how much a series is promoted in the press if the story is poor. (And, as Mozzocco's commenters state, the price is too high.) Merely making a big deal out of the fact that the characters are "different" -- in this case, Muslim -- doesn't mean squat if the story and art blow. And if the tale is preposterously PC. This will happen with Marvel's new Ms. Marvel, too, I guarantee it.
Elsewhere, Carl brings word, sadly, of how sci-fi author John Scalzi is acting just like the usual cadre of "progressive" contemporary comicbook writers when faced with the slightest degree of criticism. In this instance, writer/blogger Ed Trimnell took issue with Scalzi, and the latter responded thusly (my emphasis):
Out there in the stupidosphere comes the suggestion that …I am a stone-cold opportunist…(No, I’m not going to link to the blog post in question, because it is in the stupidosphere. You can probably find it if you make the effort. But why would you? Now, then -)
This appears to be Scalzi's M.O., especially now that he's "made it." As Trimnell says, if you're going to blog, and especially blog about politics, you have to expect disagreement. But if you're Scalzi -- not to mention some of our usual [comicbook] nemeses like Ron Marz, Kurt Busiek, Gail Simone and Mark Waid -- you don't have to take the dissension. You're "above" it all. You're "better" than those who differ with you merely due to the fact that you're more well known and financially successful. The only response to make to those who disagree (if you make a response at all) is snarky scorn.
Such a shame. I dig Scalzi's Old Man's War universe. But as with the snotty comicbook creators, why should anyone patronize you if you treat people (and their differing viewpoints) with smug contempt?
In the comics Twitter-verse, the aforementioned Kurt Busiek and Ron Marz are actually right about the issues surrounding Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty/A&E network. They've both correctly noted that this is not a First Amendment issue. But that didn't stop them from their usual snotty snark, natch:
Palin logic: Duck Dynasty guy's 1st Amendment rights are being violated, but David Letterman should have been fired for telling Palin jokes.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) December 20, 2013
Um, Kurt? Palin never demanded Letterman be axed for his vile remarks. Some of her supporters did, but not the governor herself. Indeed, when she accepted Letterman's eventual apology, what she did say was "Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction." This isn't the first time Busiek has ripped on Palin; back in early 2011 he took up the MSM narrative in wondering if the governor's "target" imagery was in some way culpable for Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords being shot but a psycho. (And be sure to read my response to Kurt in the comments to the previous link; it's directly related to being thin-skinned when getting responses to posted political opinions.)
And let's not forget our "pal" Ron Marz, of course, who tweeted yesterday:
What if Trey Radel resigned his congressional seat, but then we give it to Phil Robertson? Would that make everybody happy?— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 20, 2013
Indeed. Because Duck Dynasty's Robertson has so much in common with the representative who was busted for cocaine possession, right?
That's what "tolerant" and "sensitive" comics creator Gail Simone tweeted early this morning about Fox News's Megyn Kelly,, after several days of mocking the pundit's comments about Santa Claus "being white':
In other news, @megynkelly still a horrible person.— Gail Oakenpants (@GailSimone) December 17, 2013
Good gad, what exactly did Ms. Kelly do to merit such a denunciation? Well, she committed the most evil thing someone could do in the eyes of a radical "progressive": She dared to challenge said radical "progressive" dogma. In a segment on her show last week, Kelly addressed an essay by a black woman, Aisha Harris, who "was upset about the commercial depiction of Santa Claus as white." Ms. Harris had written "Fat old white man who is, quote,melanin deficient, made her feel ashamed as a child." Harris opined that perhaps Santa should be replaced by "Santa Penguin" (or "Penguin Santa," or whatever). In her response, Kelly basically stated that, "Sorry, but Santa is a white guy."
Uh oh. The mainstream media, and other self-righteous keepers of the PC flame like Simone pounced. It wasn't Harris whose comments were portrayed as ridiculous, but Kelly's. She was "insensitive." "Uninclusive." And, of course, "racist." For pointing out that Santa Claus is a white guy. Now, for the irrepressible dolts like Simone, the pundits at MSNBC, the Daily Kos, et. al. the fact of the matter is that Claus was indeed a Caucasian. How is Kelly pointing that out -- in response to a racialist complaining about a "fat white guy" who's "melanin deficient" -- racist and intolerant? Or, as Simone tweeted, "evil?"
Has anyone in the MSM questioned the insensitivity of Ms. Harris' remarks? Not that I've seen. Let's understand this: Kelly wasn't demanding that people of other races shouldn't play the role of Santa, nor that such depictions of him be chided. She was just addressing the typical racialist "progressive" PC nonsense that is spewed forth from the bowels of sites like Salon.com. After all, imagine if a white columnist had written that a semi-mythical black individual was a "fat old black man who is, quote, melanin over-abundant, made her feel ashamed as a child"?
SORT OF RELATED: A "no pun intended" tweet from Simone, I'm sure:
My MOVEMENT editors are the best. So creative and awesome and supportive!— Gail Oakenpants (@GailSimone) December 17, 2013
NYC councilwoman-elect Laurie Cumbo says that the apparently racially/religiously motivated "knock out" attacks in the city " represent a 'genuine concern' about Jewish influence."
Laurie Cumbo, the [African-American] councilwoman-elect for the Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights, made the comments in an open letter posted to her Facebook page. In the letter, Cumbo reports that many of her African-American constituents are alarmed by the growth of the local Jewish community.
“Many African American/Caribbean residents expressed a genuine concern that as the Jewish community continues to grow, they would be pushed out by their Jewish landlords or by Jewish families looking to purchase homes,” Cumbo wrote. ”I respect and appreciate the Jewish community’s family values and unity that has led to strong political, economic and cultural gains… While I personally regard this level of tenacity, I also recognize that for others, the accomplishments of the Jewish community triggers feelings of resentment, and a sense that Jewish success is not also their success.”
Need I ask it? As in, what if a white councilperson said this about the "encroachment" of the "growing" black community? That the "knock out" game thus is a legitimate response to this? And aren't you happy that this idiot Cumbo "recognizes" that the Jewish community is flush with accomplishments and success? So, WHY CAN'T I HAVE SOME OF THAT SUCCESS, DAMMIT??? Sounds like Cumbo is an acolyte of one Louis Farrakhan, to say the least. Ugh.
If there's one thing I can never figure out, it's why anti-Semitism is so prevalent. Maybe it's because, like with Ms. Cumbo, jealousy and envy are such common human traits. For me, Jewish history is a remarkable one: A small minority spread across the globe, yet always united. Education and continued learning is always a top priority, and as a result humanity has enormously benefited from the accomplishments of Jewish individuals. Though their numbers are very small, their accomplishments are prodigious. Such is something for which to be envious, but not negatively. It is something to be proud of, and to emulate.
Rob of JoshuaPundit has some thoughts (via e-mail):
Y'know, I saw her original statement and I have to be fair, that's not quite what she said IMO. What she said was that she blames the attacks on 'tension' between the Orthodox Jewish community and the black community in Crown Heights. She also made a point of saying that this was no excuse for violence.
Now that remark about 'tensions' denotes an equivalence, which of course is ridiculous (after all, gangs of Jews aren't targeting black folks) but given that she's a black politician who owes her position to a race-based vote, it's understandable. The tension undeniably exists. And yeah, blacks in Crown Heights and elsewhere do see Jews living more successful lives generally, in this case it's right in the neighborhood and instead of looking at why that might be and learning a few lessons, it's much easier to simply indulge in anti-semitism and envy. The same thing happened in Los Angeles and still happens with blacks and Koreans and other Asians. Although not so much anymore, since Koreans learned the same lessons Jews did after the '65 Watts riots and didn't rebuld or simply moved their small businesses out the area..which of course has led to complaints from the same residents who looted and burned the Koreans out about 'racism' and having to travel miles to buy goods and obtain services 'just because we're black' !
In Crown Heights, of course, the Orthodox Jews have simply decided not to give in to the usual white flight and have said this is their neighborhood too and they're staying. That's also a cause of 'tensions' for a lot of blacks.
( Is the day coming when we finally get sick and tired of dealing with black raced based greivance and 'tensions'?)
One thing she did say that I felt was a lot more anti-semitic ( although I think it might have been unconscious on her part) what that anger at what she termed 'landlords and high rents' among blacks was a factor in the tensions. That image automatically calls up in many minds the cartoon character of the Greedy Yid Landlord, preying on da poor black folks. never mind that rents are high in NYC even with rent control, and that Jewish renters in Crown Heights have to deal with the same landlords and rents. Or that nothing stopped black folks from investing in property as an income source and investment. Ask Charlie Rangel about that one!
I honestly don't think this woman intended to be anti-semitic. She was merely tying to make as non-judgmental a statement as possible for political reasons, without really delving into anything real.
Rob has more here.
Just like our illustrious president whose words are, well, just that, on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy some "real" journalists at those "real" news outlets are doing same: Blathering with a lot of words, but nothing of substance. Case in point: The NY Times and San Francisco Chronicle are taking to blaming ... the Right for the killing of our 35th president. Yep, conservatives. Despite the fact that the killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a Communist.
Here's Joe Garofoli of the Chronicle:
The authors describe how the intense anti-Kennedy atmosphere in Dallas at that time created a "hothouse" where an unstable, malleable loner like assassin Lee Harvey Oswald could germinate.
But historian Michael Lind said it is "nonsense" that the atmosphere in Dallas allowed Oswald to surface.
"His communism had nothing to do with his location. He had just moved to Dallas," said Lind, the co-founder of the New America Foundation and author of "Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics."
That aside, Lind said, "The radical right has always been there for the last 50 years. It just never had a national presence. Now it does."
See? Oswald's communism was irrelevant. He was just "overcome" by the "radical rightist" atmosphere permeating Dallas at the time. (Lind, by the way, is fairly well known as a revisionist historian. No kidding.)
Likewise, here's the NY Times' Manny Hernandez:
In the early 1960s, a small but vocal subset of the Dallas power structure turned the political climate toxic, inciting a right-wing hysteria that led to attacks on visiting public figures.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist and not a product of right-wing Dallas. But because the anti-Kennedy tenor came not so much from radical outcasts but from parts of mainstream Dallas, some say the anger seemed to come with the city’s informal blessing.
Meaning, just like liberal politicians (and the MSM) have done predictably for the last 50+ years, those nasty conservatives "created" an ambiance of hate which "provoked" a guy like Oswald to do what he did. Even though he was a left-wing Marxist. Just like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were "victims" of guys like Rush Limbaugh, according to Bill Clinton. Like how just about every killer on a rampaging mass shooting can, beyond all reason, be linked to talk radio, Fox News, the Tea Party (this may be the most classic example), and/or the Republican Party. Not to mention there's the race angle, perpetuated by dolts like Chuck Rangel who most recently said that "there’s a Confederate general in every damn [Republican] living room." Y'know, despite the fact that it was the Democratic Party that led the secessionist movement prior to the Civil War, and was the GOP which promoted the abolition of slavery.
The revisionism continues today with Democrats -- (rightfully) embarrassed by their past -- attempting to promote the idea that the two major political parties "have done a 180" on [minority] civil rights. It's ridiculous. What's the old saying? "Say a lie enough and it becomes truth?" Don't let it happen.
And that's Geoffrey Dickens' compilation of the "20 Worst Chris Matthews Quotes Calling Obama Critics Racist."
Moonbat Democrat Rep. Frank Pallone was on the Megyn Kelly show last night and, well, just watch:
It's bad enough that Pallone is shoveling the bullsh** that ObamaCare is just "capitalism;" what's worse is that he is saying that HE -- and OBAMA -- "know" that the insurance plans which people had canceled were "inferior." Kelly tried to point out that millions liked those plans and are miffed they were canceled, so how were these so "bad?" But Pallone remained in moonbat-ville: As predicted, the talking point is that the insurance companies are the bad guys because they decided to drop coverage. Kelly attempted to point out to Pallone that the ObumbleCare law is precisely why the companies had to drop coverage. (It's actually the HHS minions who decided what a "change" in policy would be so as to disallow the "grandfathering" of policies.) But Pallone didn't waver. He just kept that swarmy smile on his face, saying "No, no ..." and swaying back and forth like the conceited d*** that he is.
Because he (and Obama) know better than us peons. Just shut up and accept it, dammit, and try not to be so ungrateful.
Hey, remember when those nasty Tea Partiers screamed racial epithets at Democrats, particularly members of the CBC, during the ObumbleCare vote in 2010? Oh, that's right, it didn't happen -- despite Dems yelling about it and their MSM cohorts parroting every word. There was never a single shred of proof, despite the since-deceased Andrew Breitbart offering a $10K award for audio/video proof of such.
Now, "I'm A" Dick Durbin went on Facebook to claim that a "House GOP leader" told Boss Obama during gov. shutdown negotiations that he could not "even stand to look at [him]." But, just like the above, not only was there zippo proof, the White House itself denied Durbin's anecdote. This, however, did not deter Dick. That is, until the WH issued an "official" statement still not granting credence to his claim. Then Dick's office posted on Facebook again: "I appreciate this clarification from the White House that explains recent conflicting reports on the GOP quote."
Translation: "I'm a f***ing liar."
They just don't stop. Obviously, the only business they want is that from like-minded people. The rest of you can go screw yourselves.
First up today is Ed Brubaker who [in]famously had Captain America go after the Tea Party:
http://t.co/tFhLhV55Dl This is pretty fascinating, if you like history.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) October 17, 2013
Yes, it's "fascinating" because the linked article's author trashes the GOP (it's Rolling Stone, after all), referring to their "extremism," their "suicide machine," and calling them "morons." Yep, "fascinating."
Here's a tweet retweeted by Rick Remender:
I want to congratulate the Republicans for a very brave fight against a very fake monster.— daveanthony (@daveanthony) October 16, 2013
Indeed. ObumbleCare is a "fake monster." The sign-up procedure is an unmitigated disaster, average folks' premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing, the overall cost of the program is at least three times what we were sold, and Boss Obama's promises about it have turned out to be complete fantasies. But these concerns are "fake." It's truly pathetic how these folks can't see anything outside their "progressive" alternate reality bubble.
And then there's the "prodigious intellect" known as Ron "STFU" Marz who tweets
So, basically, I got the same thing out of all this as the GOP, and I didn't hold the economy hostage.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 17, 2013
Is that right? $17 trillion in debt isn't "holding the economy hostage," Ron? Mandating folks purchase a private product or face the wrath of the IRS isn't "holding the economy (and the public) hostage," Ron? Forcing health insurance rates and deductibles to skyrocket for average folks isn't "holding the economy hostage," Ron you blithering idiot? Cripes, your logic is about as brilliant as your comicbook tales were.
Lastly, it's the anachronistic Gerry Conway who posts
These idiots need to pay a price for their stupidity: High Cost to the Economy From the Fiscal Impasse http://t.co/jw8tQzEVbx— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) October 16, 2013
Uh huh. As opposed to the stupidity of the 2009 stimulus bill. As opposed to the complete and utter waste of President Lemon's "green" projects. As opposed to the insanely inept boondoggle we're witnessing now called ObumbleCare. And, what would that "price" be, Ger? Something like this? Or maybe like this MoveOn.org petition? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
This is what the industry thinks of you, right-of-center comicbook fans. They piss on you and your views. Spending your money on them is beyond counter-productive.
... you see one dolt carrying a Soviet/Chinese flag at an Occupy or whatever "progressive" rally. Y'know, like here. Now, watch this:
Yep, that's Chris Matthews turning an entire segment of his show into a diatribe on how one protester with a Confederate flag "represents" all Republicans and conservatives.
Remember that Boss Obama, Joe "Plugs" Biden and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Dolt (among others) all expressed support for the Occupy Movement.
The lunacy of "progressive" comicbook creators who really must want to limit their audience. Here's Ron "STFU" Marz yesterday, trying to be "cute":
You know, those veterans who went to WW2 Memorial fought against lunatic ideologues who wanted to force their beliefs on rest of the world.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 2, 2013
You know what Ron is implying here, right? Of course, not even considered for a second by his pointy little head is this: Who, again, got a "health" care plan passed on a purely partisan vote that, for the first time demands a person purchase a private product ... or face a penalty enforced by our very own IRS? The very same IRS which this same person who got "health" care passed has been using as his very own political Gestapo?
Knee-slappingly, Marz also tweeted yesterday "I'm not stupid." Yes, Ron, you most definitely are.
The Dems have seen a jump in the "generic ballot" immediately following new of the government shutdown; however, in their zeal (as they always do) to make the GOP look "extreme," "childish," "petty," etc, they may be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (h/t to Insty): Sending more personnel to the World War II Memorial than Benghazi, Libya. Closing parks the [federal] Park Service doesn't even run. The Boss Obama administration paying union thugs to protest WWII vets (see also here) who showed up at said memorial. Grocery stores on army bases are closed ... but the golf course at Andrews AFB (where Boss Obama plays) is open.
But perhaps most vile of all is Harry Reid stating "Why would we want to do that?" in response to a reporter's question about allowing funding for child cancer patients.
But hey, if you're into all this crap, then you actually believed President Lemon's preposterous promises about ObamaCare (among many other things) in the first place. You're beyond help now.
RELATED: Ace reports on a poll that includes the following distressing info:
A Harris Poll for the American Bar Association in 2005 found that 22% of respondents thought the three branches of government were "Republican, Democrat and Independent." Two-thirds of Americans couldn't name a single sitting Supreme Court justice in 2003, and fewer than 1% could name all nine. In 1987, about half of Americans thought Karl Marx's dictum "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" was in the U.S. Constitution. In 1964, only 38% of the American people were certain the Soviet Union wasn't in NATO.
Avi has still more evidence of what many contemporary comicbook creators in the business think of you, conservatives.
Worst of the lot in this case? Erik Larsen calling Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal a "fucking idiot" and a "sore loser." Keep in mind Larsen is the guy who claimed George W. Bush "cheated his way into the Oval Office -- twice." Just so you know how tenuous his grip on reality really is.
... remember what these folks -- who want you to buy their product -- think of you:
The rest of the civilized health-care-is-a-basic-human-right world is like, "You shut down your government over WHAT?"— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 1, 2013
Remember these people when the next elections come along. Remember how little they cared about their own constituents.— GailSimone (@GailSimone) October 1, 2013
Remember when Congress didn't approve Obamacare, the Supreme Court struck it down, and we didn't re-elect the President? #MeNeither— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 1, 2013
I want a "conscience exemption" for paying Congress.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 1, 2013
People get confused when they claim we had a revolution over taxation. They forget that the "…without representation" part was key.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 1, 2013
I want a return to the "reasonable" GOP who impeached a President for lying about getting a blowjob.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) September 30, 2013
"No health care for you, or we stop paying our soldiers" is apparently a successful political slogan in some districts.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) September 30, 2013
And complete "WTF?" statements:
Let's not forget that the entire Obamacare/Affordable Care Act law that passed was a HUGE compromise to the GOP. Dems wanted single payer.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) September 30, 2013
Then there's these retweeted by our old pal Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid:
All this to stop poorer Americans from getting health insurance funded by Medicare cuts and taxing rich people. http://t.co/HydO3bftUM— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) October 1, 2013
If only there were procedures for US to enact new laws and determine if they met standards of Constitution instead of piecemeal extortion— Christopher Kubasik (@MakerCK) October 1, 2013
Never underestimate Speaker Boehner's willingness to risk your job to save his. http://t.co/KI95KbIQQd— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) October 1, 2013
They actually did it. A group of Republicans in the House just forced a government shutdown over Obamacare instead of passing a real budget.— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 1, 2013
If you don't care about a creator's personal/political views, good for you. If you want to shell out four dollars per issue for what they put out, even better. But for me -- and many others -- I have a problem with giving my hard-earned cash to someone who pisses on things I believe in, and/or ridiculously distorts same, so much like our pathetic MSM.
I know you've heard it all here before. It just really remains a mystery to me why these guys (and gals) utilize such "business acumen." Maybe they realize their medium is dying so they don't care? That they've already made their cash when times were good, so big deal? Or, hell, maybe it really is a matter of principle -- that these folk put beliefs over money. I don't believe that (there's ample evidence across the "progressive" spectrum of such hypocrisy), but it is a possibility, I have to admit. But even if true, my cash will remain in my well-worn wallet. I don't need to give affirmation to someone who thinks I'm a Neanderthal-browed miscreant.
... Cheney University is claiming "racism" for its cuts.
The answer is: When an idiot member of the MSM says so.
Check out Neanderthal former Obama car czar Steve Rattner referring to Republicans as "terrorists" because no one (supposedly) can negotiate with them over a debt ceiling hike. When show co-host Joe Scarborough asked him if Boss Obama was a "terrorist" because he opposed said hike in 2006, Rattner begged show co-host Mika Brzezinski to "help me out here," and then lamely offered "it's complicated."
Yeah, it's about as "complicated" as turning on a freakin' faucet, you tool. View the hilarity:
Check out the tweets from Allan Brauer, the communications chair of the Democratic Party of Sacramento County, about Amanda Carpenter, speechwriter for Ted Cruz:
@amandacarpenter May your children all die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.— allanbrauer (@allanbrauer) September 20, 2013
Busy blocking the tapeworms that have slithered out of hellspawn @amandacarpenter's asshole. How's your day so far?— allanbrauer (@allanbrauer) September 20, 2013
Then, of course, like many other a "progressive" pu**y, he cries and whines when the blowback occurs:
I'm being attacked on Twitter for wishing one of Ted Cruz's pubic lice to experience the pain her boss is inflicting on Americans.— allanbrauer (@allanbrauer) September 20, 2013
Yes, your party takes bread from the mouths of starving children and medicine from the sick, and I'm the problem. Got it.— allanbrauer (@allanbrauer) September 20, 2013
This piece of excrement sure sounds an awful lot like his brethren here in the First State, doesn't he?
Here's one for 'yas: As it seems now, that the Washington Navy Yard shooter had numerous mental health and anger issues ... which should have precluded him from obtaining a weapon, should the following two individuals be so prevented as well -- based on their following statements?
You f***ing Republicans are all to blame. Your advocacy of deregulation for the last 30 years is responsible. The greed that underlies your policies and that invades your supporters was your motivation. You put yourselves and your wallets first, and our country last. You should all be round up and shot. Seriously.
That's Delaware Douche of the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers. If a person gets so worked up over political disagreements that he wishes his opponents dead, should such a person be permitted to own a firearm?
While reasonable people can disagree about whether or not George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, nobody disputes the fact that he wanted a "pearl harbor" [sic] type event to happen in order to create a pretext for attacking Iraq.
This is Jason "Trust Fund" Scott of the same blog. Should someone who believes that it "is reasonable" to think our previous president actually allowed 9/11 to happen, and claim that nobody disputes that the for POTUS wanted a "Pearl Harbor" event to occur, be permitted to own a firearm? Doesn't this suggest serious mental health issues?
It's inevitable. They just can't help it. It's in the Alinsky playbook, after all: Y'know, "Never let a crisis go to waste." Even when there isn't really a crisis. Such now is the case in the aftermath of the Washington Navy Yard shooting. After all, here's what the 80-page "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging produced by three Democratic consulting firms says:
The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak. The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.
We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence. Compelling facts should be used to back up that emotional narrative, not as a substitute for it.
Next up, there's the idiot from Salon.com Joan Walsh, a frequent yes-man on MSNBC:
Please stop with the "violent video games." Sadly, a lot of folks play them. A handful kill. It's not a motive.— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) September 17, 2013
Of course, it never occurred to this 'bat that this very same argument applies to gun control: A lot of folks own guns, but only a handful actually kill with them.
Locally, the wisher of death upon all Republicans thanks the NRA for the shooting. Then, "Trust Fund" Scott apparently doesn't let having had everything handed to him in life get in the way of getting angry. Here he lets loose with the predictable profanity against the proprietor of the First Street Journal blog, Dana. Oh, here, too. Then he bans the guy for 48 hours. Just because Dana made him look foolish. (Not that difficult, I know.)
CNN 'bat Piers Morgan ranted about the AR-15 supposedly used by the shooter; however, the FBI says now that there was no AR-15 used -- only a shotgun and two pistols. NARRATIVETM busted again. A**hole.
Not necessarily related directly but certainly indirectly is AMSCO's textbook United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination. Keep in mind that last part: Advanced Placement. Now check out how it "writes" the Second Amendment: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia." Authors John J. Newman and John M. Schmalbach should be incredibly ashamed of themselves. I mean ... ADVANCED PLACEMENT, for cripe's sake!!! And the Second Amendment ain't all. These dolts also use the phrase "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment. Y'know, even though it ain't actually there. Bryan Preston has contacted the publisher (again, AMSCO) for comment. Stay tuned.
From Jim Geraghty's e-mailed "Morning Jolt" -- it so perfectly describes President Lemon's administration to a tee:
As we await Congress's decision on authorizing the use of U.S. military force in Syria, Democrats are suddenly realizing that their foreign-policy brain-trust completely misjudged the world.
Being nicer to countries like Russia will not make them nicer to you. The United Nations is not an effective tool for resolving crises. Some foreign leaders are beyond persuasion and diplomacy. There is no "international community" ready to work together to solve problems, and there probably never will be.
You can pin this on Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Susan Rice, but most of all, the buck stops with the president. Those of us who scoffed a bit at a state senator ascending to the presidency within four years on a wave of media hype and adoration are not quite so shocked by this current mess. We never bought into this notion that getting greater cooperation from our allies, and less hostility from our enemies, was just a matter of giving this crew the wheel and letting them practice, as Hillary Clinton arrogantly declared it, "smart power." (These people can't even label a foreign-policy approach without reminding us of how highly they think of themselves.) They looked out at the world at the end of the Bush years, and didn't see tough decisions, unsolvable problems, unstable institutions, restless populations, technology enabling the impulse to destabilize existing institutions, evil men hungry for more power, and difficult trade-offs. No, our problems and challengers were just a matter of the previous hands running U.S. foreign policy not being smart enough.
Read the rest of this spot-on gem here.
Moonbat cartoonist Rob Tornoe, a contributor to the LGOMB (that's the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers), displays all the hypocritical Left's pastiche for "civility" and "sensitivity" as you'd expect in today's Philly.com:
Unfortunately, there's no sign Tebow is set to give up trying to be a quarterback in the NFL. He tweeted on Saturday, "I will remain in relentless pursuit of continuing my lifelong dream of being an NFL quarterback."
That's the problem with faith... sometimes it can overcome logic. The only team that I could see possibly taking a flyer on Tebow would be Buffalo. Due to injuries, they may be forced to start undrafted free agent Jeff Tuel at quarterback in week 1 against the Patriots, so maybe Tebow can give him some inside information the way Lawyer Milloy did when he signed with the Bills back in 2003.
You can view Tornoe's "sensitive" cartoon here, which hypothesizes that Tebow may have a concussion for being adamant he can still play in the NFL.
Now, I actually have little issue with the concept that Tebow probably doesn't have what it takes to play in the NFL anymore. But that's not what guys like Tornoe really care about anyway. For them, it's an opportunity to mock those with faith. Plain and simple. As it always has for much of the MSM. I mean, hell -- if someone had the gall to point out in any number of News Journal "tug at your heart strings" articles about a 28-year old single mom with three kids by three different fathers who harbors dreams of becoming a physician that she, in any sense of the term "reality," has no chance of seeing that coming true, well, to the 'bats you're a heartless (and possibly racist) SOB who is deserving of the utmost scorn.
But what would expect from a contributor to Media Matters, and an associate of one who wishes death upon all Republicans, eh?
“Awwwwwwwww. I bet this makes the Baby Jesus weep. Tim should have prayed more.”
“Hey Tim, are you getting the message now? Nothing fails like prayer.”
“If Tim Tebow spend as much time concentrating on playing football as he did worrying about promoting his religion, he might not be getting cut.”
“We’re all going to hell and we’re excited about it. Don’t be jealous.”
“It would have been different for him had he kept his religion home and just been a regular ball player.”
“Where’s your god now, Tebow?”
Classy, eh? And what has this guy done to deserve such? He didn't get arrested. He didn't have multiple kids out of wedlock. He didn't get drunk and use racial slurs. He didn't get caught using drugs.
None of that. He's a Christian. That's all. "Great job," Tornoe and co.
Well, what else would you expect from the wisher of death upon Republicans? In this ... predictable post, Delaware Dunce blames George W. Bush for the current administration's inability to intervene in Syria, and notes that if Al Gore had been allowed to serve as president (since he "really" won the 2000 election), Bush/Iraq fatigue wouldn't even be manifested now, and attacking Syria would be much more palatable. And DD would be for intervening now.
Every time I see @MileyCyrus slap that black woman's butt, I think about the way that enslaved blacks were whipped for white entertainment.— Aura Bogado (@aurabogado) August 26, 2013
As if we needed more proof that those who constantly clamor about others' racism are the real racists.
*Siiiiigh* What's next, folks? Is race and/or racism lurking behind everything these days? Here, I made a few tweets myself so I could be like the HuffPo, Macklemore, and Ms. Bogado:
But in all seriousness, folks -- this is where we are today. "Racism" is everywhere to an alarmingly increasing number of people. Such is the fallout from inanities of like comparing Trayvon Martin to Emmett Till, claiming that requiring an ID to vote is like Jim Crow laws, and stating that comparisons of Boss Obama to Tiger Woods aren't due to golf, but due to the worst stereotypes of black men.
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. And ultimately, dangerous.
A Washington Post critic: Christians Threaten the Lives of Authors Casting Jesus 'In a Bad Light.'
Really? REALLY?? And people wonder why the dinosaur media is fading away? This alternate-reality mentality is staggeringly stupefying at times.
Salon.com: "The right’s black crime obsession" and "Conservative media’s total fixation on black-on-black and black-on-white crime isn’t going to end. Here’s why."
Gotta have those "real" convos on race, after all.
(h/t Da Tech Guy)
Last week, 10 checks totaling $3,764.61 were delivered to ex-prosecutor Steven Pagones — the first payments Brawley has made since a court determined in 1998 that she defamed him with her vicious hoax.
A Virginia court this year ordered the money garnisheed from six months of Brawley’s wages as a nurse there.
She still owes Pagones $431,000 in damages. And she remains defiantly unapologetic.
I'm sure she does. Because her mentor, Al Sharpton, remains likewise. In fact, if anything, the Brawley hoax helped his career immensely.
The funniest thing I'll always remember about this whole mess was Howard Stern constantly replaying a clip of Brawley trying to say "Nobody manipulates me or my family." She must have never seen/heard the second word for it came out as "manip-shnapes." It was one of the most hilarious Stern moments ever.
Is it pure coincidence that these two landmark cities, known around the world as fountainheads of the most vibrant and creative aspects of American culture, have become our two direst examples of urban failure and collapse? If so, it’s an awfully strange one. I’m tempted to propose a conspiracy theory: As centers of African-American cultural and political power and engines of a worldwide multiracial pop culture that was egalitarian, hedonistic and anti-authoritarian, these cities posed a psychic threat to the most reactionary and racist strains in American life. I mean the strain represented by Tom Buchanan in “The Great Gatsby” (imagine what he’d have to say about New Orleans jazz) or by the slightly more coded racism of Sean Hannity today. As payback for the worldwide revolution symbolized by hot jazz, Smokey Robinson dancin’ to keep from cryin’ and Eminem trading verses with Rihanna, New Orleans and Detroit had to be punished. Specifically, they had to be isolated, impoverished and almost literally destroyed, so they could be held up as examples of what happens when black people are allowed to govern themselves.
*Sigh* WTF can one say to such utter and complete moonbattery? And if you think this is crackers (as in "nuts," not Caucasian-ness), be sure to check out Ace's dissection of this idiot's movie reviews, most recently that of The Conjuring.
... and because you're obsessed with race:
Yep, that's the nitwit, Touré, a man whose obsession with race is only surpassed by Michael Eric Dyson. He indeed said "that Republicans are 'talking about black-on-black crime to block the conversation around a Peruvian-American, not a Hispanic, a Peruvian-American shooting a black man.'"
Got that? George Zimmerman, because of his Peruvian ancestry, now isn't "Hispanic." Except that, of course, he most certainly is:
Hispanic (Spanish: hispano, hispánico; Portuguese: hispânico, hispano, Catalan: hispà, hispànic) is an ethnonym that denotes a relationship to Spain or, in some definitions, to ancient Hispania, which comprised the Iberian Peninsula including the modern states of Andorra, Portugal, and Spain and the British Crown Dependency of Gibraltar. Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catch all to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship either with Spain and Portugal or only with Spain, regardless of race. However, in the eyes of the US Census Bureau, Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity, or any country of origin.
Cripes, first this idiot network selectively edits the 911 call Zimmerman made which was the real catalyst in turning this whole tragic affair into a national "racist" incident, then ABC does the same with an interview with the one minority juror in the murder case. Now, we've descended to denying that Zimmerman even qualifies as the ethnic background that he actually is.
What should we expect next? A member of the Peruvian-American Society on MSNBC claiming that, since Zimmerman has never visited Machu Picchu, he cannot claim Peruvian ancestry? That Zimmerman's genealogy shows him to be a descendant of Francisco Pizarro, and this proves his inherent hatred of "dark" people?
Don't laugh. I wouldn't be surprised to see something exactly like those ridiculous hypotheticals above appear on the usual channels in the near future.
I remember when several prominent liberals threatened to move out of the US if George Bush was re-elected. Now, this douche is telling all black people to move back to Africa. No, he's not a white supremacist (as least I don't think so); he thinks the injustice of the Trayvon Martin case is reason for all black people to leave for Africa. Somehow I doubt he'll be leading from the front.
And if you differ with them, well, you know by now.
Remember, it's Racism Savings Time tonight. Don't forget to set your clock back 60 years before you go to bed.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
Is anybody feeling good about that verdict in Florida? Anybody at all?— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) July 14, 2013
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Zimmerman WALKS? Another big day for racism in this country! Christ.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
If nothing else, I hope people are forcefully reminded that this nation must grapple with its utter dysfunction over racism and guns.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) July 14, 2013
It breaks the heart, dissolves faith in the intellect and character of your fellow man, and saps your remaining hope in this entire mess.— Rick Remender (@Remender) July 14, 2013
From Reason's Facebook page:
New media allows the audience to express its thoughts. No wonder celebrities, politicians, and others with power are apoplectic.
You've seen what we've posted many times here, especially with regards to comicbook creators: how they get in hizzy fits when someone dares to challenge/question them when they post a political comment on Twitter, Facebook, or wherever. As Reason continues (regarding Alec Baldwin, in this case):
Baldwin's real issue with new media - he slags Tumblr, Vine, MySpace, Facebook, and more - is that they level kings and queens and even celebrities into a mosh pit of direct, unmediated exchange that is hard as hell to control. It turns out that there's really no red carpet or champagne room when it comes to the way that stars (read: world leaders, sitcom heroes, famous authors, former child actors, you name it) are treated.
What's more, his followers have minds of their own. They may enjoy his turns in Glenngarry Glenn Ross and 30 Rock and guest-hosting on Turner Classic Movies but not really find his views on fracking to be worth a damn. It's a real kick in the pants for a celebrity to be reduced to asking, "Do you think I'm really changing anybody's mind?"
Amen. I think Kurt Busiek is one of the greatest comicbook writers ever to grace the industry. As I've noted previously, he even once -- back before social media ... indeed, even before the explosion of the World Wide Web -- said he doesn't like economic boycotts, preferring to challenge speech with more speech. But his view conveniently changed in the Age of Social Media. I had argued to Kurt (back then) that guys like me had no other real recourse other than our wallets; now, we have precisely what Busiek had advocated: a means to challenge speech with more speech.
And guys like Kurt don't like it. It's bad enough, I suppose, that they have to defend in real time what they do in their stories; now, if they choose to be political, they have to defend that, too. And it surprised the hell out of them that, lo and behold, there are plenty of people out there who enjoy their stories ... but not necessarily their politics. Their solution? Block dissenters. Belittle them. In other words, nothing much different than what your typical radical "progressive" does.
This phenomenon is not unlike what we've seen with the ascension of Fox News. Conservatives wanted -- craved -- a news outlet that would at the very least cover their point of view on issues, and do it fairly. Fox News filled that niche and violá -- instant, incredible ratings success. "Progressives," our supposed paragons of tolerance and understanding, saw what was coming and attacked. And their most telling response to conservatives' "just covering other points of view" claim is ... "one doesn't have to be tolerant of intolerance." (See here for a perfect, and recent, example.) Which is, of course, the easiest way to avoid a discussion and/or debate.
You can always count on race-on-the-brain-100%-of-the-time Michael Eric Dyson to make a complete jackass of himself (well, except to the 25% or so of moonbats who've already completely lost it). The Georgetown professor(!!) said, regarding the recent SCOTUS decision invalidating a section of the Voting Rights Act, that Justice Thomas is "a symbolic Jew" who "has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide."
Of course, he was on MSNBC.
No wonder this nimrod contributes to the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers. Just check out his latest "cartoon." Aside from the fact that it is woefully factually wrong, not to mention downright racially insensitive to the one African-American justice on the Supreme Court, it totally ignores (purposely, no doubt) the obvious: "How is it that we can't expect certain people/areas/regions to evolve when it comes to race, but we expect same to evolve when it comes to sexual orientation?"
So, indeed: Let's base national policy around what one person said a while ago (and part of which was under extreme duress). Meanwhile, let's continue the deprecation that it is perfectly acceptable to denigrate black Americans if they do not think and believe as "progressives" want them to.
The US Supreme Court has just struck down a section of the
40 50 year-old Voting Rights Act, and as could be predicted, the usual suspects are being irrational. Like MSNBC's Melissa Harry-Perry:
Damn, that citizenship thing was so great for awhile.— Melissa Harris-Perry (@MHarrisPerry) June 25, 2013
And the same network's Chris Hayes:
I am slightly surprised by how physically enraged I find myself.— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 25, 2013
Thankfully, there's Breitbart's Ben Shapiro for some rational common sense:
Voter turnout gap between whites and blacks in AL in 1965 was almost 50 percent. 2004: 0.9 percent. Leftists: But nothing has changed!— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 25, 2013
UPDATE: Hey look! It's Ron Marz again, offering still more evidence of his prodigious intellect!
Just don't ask Ron how today's SCOTUS decision would do just that. He'll ignore you. Because, to coin a cliché, ignorance is bliss. Meanwhile, enjoy a non-emotional, 21st century rational examination of today's high court decision.
UPDATE 2: The Corner has compiled a Top Ten list of the best ["progressive"] overreactions to today's SCOTUS Voting Rights Act decision.
Is Bobby Jindal’s reputation for intelligence anything other than ethnic stereotyping?— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) June 18, 2013
To which Fort Liberty [rightly] tweets that this "reminds me of Biden's racist comment about Indians working at 7-11 and Dunkin Donuts."
At least, yes.
... we're talking about a conservative. Case in point: comics guy Kurt Busiek. He tweets yesterday about the recent NSA/spying flap:
David Simon of THE WIRE on the NSA scandal. Or "scandal," perhaps: davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked…— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) June 7, 2013
Kurt goes on to say "I mean, we can suddenly flip out that the government is made up of werewolves, but shouldn't there be some evidence first?" and complains about "overreaching without any evidence for it is imagination, not reportage."
But let's go back a bit in time, shall we? When Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot by a lunatic, Busiek wasn't exactly in "wait and see" mode. Well, he said he was, but then contemplated what we all heard ad nauseum throughout the MSM:
I wrote in the comments at the time:
I've absolutely NO hassle with anyone pontificating on matters political, whatever your field of endeavor. However, if you're in Kurt's field, it is ridiculous to expect NO criticism in response to your outspokenness. In regards to the Giffords shooting, Kurt immediately took the Reflexive Left's penchant for invoking conservative "hate" rhetoric as a "cause" for a killer's/terrorist's actions. Yes, he did say "we need to wait and see," but then again, Kurt did not exactly wait, did he? Moreover, by exclusively focusing on Palin, the Right, and moronic a-holes like that hateful comics vendor, Busiek effectively alienates approximately half of his fan base. And then people complain when those alienated point to his comments?
Of course, there was no word from Busiek (at least none that I saw at the time, or since) about the Left's "irresponsible" use of imagery like crosshairs, etc. They use such all the time, too.
And we're still waiting on some enlightened commentary by these creators regarding some of the other Obama scandals. Or, will they, like Busiek above, put that plural of the term in quotes, too?
RELATED: Oh-so-smart Ron Marz, who also has ignored the IRS, press spying, and Benghazi scandals, has the balls to tweet this:
Six people dead in a shooting in Santa Monica, and it's not even a trending topic. Doubly depressing.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) June 8, 2013
The Washington scandals have been trending for weeks now, Ron. With nary a word from you and your ilk. Triply depressing.
... which is fine, of course, but again we see their utter hypocrisy, not to mention selectivity. First, there's Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid:
An amazing (and dead-on) piece about Bradley Manning (who, IMO, is being GROSSLY overcriminalized by the govt): rollingstone.com/politics/blogs…— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) June 7, 2013
And Rick Remender:
"The debate we should be having is over whether as a people we approve of the acts he uncovered..." rol.st/123mSln— Rick Remender (@Remender) June 7, 2013
Again, the "rightness" of Manning's actions are certainly debatable; what cracks me up is that there has been nary a word from these guys about the one-scandal-after-another Boss Obama administration: Benghazi, the DOJ snooping on the AP and other reporters, the IRS, and now the NSA data-collecting matter. When they do, we get the usual muddle, like with Ed Brubaker here:
washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog… Seems like the real scandal is that any of these groups get tax exempt status in the first place.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) May 14, 2013
In subsequent posts, Brubaker claimed that he's "not a fan of either side, even slightly," and that "none of them (503 [c] groups) should be granted tax exempt status when they're clearly not 'non-political.'" But again, to Brubaker, this is the REAL scandal -- not that the IRS is abusing its power. Hell, perhaps even scarier is Ed saying "I think every group from any side of the political spectrum that raises money for political reason should be investigated."
Yeah, great -- to hell with free speech. Let's give the feds even more investigatory power, whether through the IRS, FBI or whoever. Because you're raising money for a political candidate you like. Wonderful.
Need I say it? Just imagine if these scandals were occurring under George W. Bush's watch. Think there'd be a paucity of tweets about the scandals then? HA. Indeed, aside from the innumerable tweets, there'd be stuff like this aplenty.
Via The Corner: MSNBC's Martin Bashir claims that saying "IRS" is akin to saying -- wait for it! -- "ni**er."
Yes, I'm serious.
That's "Low Information Voters," natch. Conservative guy Caleb Bonham journeyed to Colorado University and "asked several people to sign a 'thank you' card to thank the IRS for unfairly targeting conservative groups." Here's what happened:
The "progressive" foul-mouthed comics writer, like Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton and Emanuel Cleaver, apparently believes the only scandal surrounding the president currently is that the GOP is showing its racism -- they're just being "clever" as to how they hide it:
Boehner scrambles for a way to say "uppity" without actually using the word: livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/boehner-…— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) May 16, 2013
Gosh, what did the Speaker of the House actually say? That Obama is "displaying an 'arrogance of power.'"
Nice to know that Waid is yet another of those limousine libs who believe that the formerly oppressed need their special "protection" from consequences for which others are not so entitled.
Because when you say sh** like this, it's gotta be proof that there's no more actual racism:
And here's Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D) for good measure, claiming that Boss Obama's “'pigmentation' [is] the driving force behind Republicans’ outcry over the scandals ..."
Let's face it, folks -- Barack Obama could be on videotape murdering someone and moonbats like Matthews, Sharpton and Cleaver would blame racism/white supremacy/bigotry for it. I mean, after all if a black man cannot legitimately be held accountable for his actions ... and this is precisely what Chrissy and Big Al are saying.
NAACP President Emeritus Julian Bond defended -- DEFENDED!! -- the IRS for targeting groups like the Tea Party because such groups are “admittedly racist.”
“I think it’s entirely legitimate to look at the tea party,” said Bond, whose group was audited by the IRS during the Bush administration. “I mean, here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who’ve tried as best they can to harm President Obama in every way they can. I don’t think there are correct parallels between these incidents. It was wrong for the IRS to behave in this heavy-handed manner. They didn’t explain it well before or now what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. But there are no parallels between these two.”
"No parallels ...?" Wait -- did we hear about the IRS selectively targeting liberal groups during President Bush's terms? Does anyone seriously doubt we wouldn't have heard knowing our MSM as we do? As such, Bond is totally full of sh**. Even moreso when he says garbage like the T.P. being "admittedly racist" and that the Tea Party is the "Taliban wing of American politics."
That schtick is beyond old, dude. We have guys like you to "thank" for making the term "racist" virtually meaningless now.
Superior Spider-Man writer Dan Slott is proving to "grow" more infantile every day. If he isn't sarcastically denigrating fans who dislike the direction of his book (check the comment section), he's trying to get them booted off Twitter:
When a "fan" sends tweets like that to assistant editors, PLEASE that show "fans" like @orobles1 do NOT represent ALL fans. Report for spam.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 13, 2013
A real professional (and grown-up) would either ignore the comment altogether, or simply say something like "Wow, sorry you feel that way. Not every story will be everybody's cup of tea" and leave it at that. But not Slott. You say something like this and you must be STOPPED! Fortunately, in the midst of all the swooning fanboys who jumped in to report Mr. Robles at Slott's behest, there was a voice of reason:
@danslott granted, he shouldn't be saying that where he is, it's not spam, and it's not right for you to falsely get someone in trouble for— Ryan Bieri (@ChestoBerry) May 13, 2013
@danslott a message that doesn't sit well with you.— Ryan Bieri (@ChestoBerry) May 13, 2013
'Ol Dan Rather offered up a beefy defense of Boss Obama the other day on -- you guessed it -- The Chris Matthews Show:
All of these things we’ve said about what the president could do, should do, might have, could have, but the central thing to keep in mind is his opponents - you talk about taking them out to dinner, making nice with them - these people politically want to cut his heart out and throw his liver to the dogs. That does make it very, very difficult to come on nice to them.
If the current press corps showed even a fraction of the resolve you showed in the above instances (sans, of course, the fraud in the last example) towards Boss Obama, we might finally get some straight answers about things like Benghazi. Ironically, the only MSM outlet doing any real reporting on that issue (aside from Fox News) is CBS.
What an asshole. Wayne LaPierre: 'How Many Bostonians Wished They Had A Gun Two Weeks Ago?' huff.to/YvjFub no sense of reality.— Jimmy Palmiotti (@jpalmiotti) May 4, 2013
One of his followers comments "And how exactly do you fight a concealed bomb with a hand gun?" To which Palmiotti responds "Exactly."
"No sense of reality," eh Jimmy? Earth to both of you: No, a gun wouldn't stop a concealed bomb; however, if you were watching the news following the bombing, the two bombers were running rampant through the city, seeking escape. That's why, y'know, there was a manhunt after them. LaPierre is right -- I bet a lot of Bostonians would have felt safer in that post-bombing situation.
Palmiotti apparently is just another Dan Slott -- curled up inside his "progressive" bubble where it's hip and cool to spew sh** at guys like LaPierre ... and same to be in favor of, say, fundamentally altering a long-standing comic history for the sake of their god: political correctness.
Superior Spider-Man writer Dan "Set the Record Straight" Slott is pissed -- PISSED I tell you! (Dan likes to use CAPS a lot on Twitter) -- that the US Senate failed to achieve the needed 60 votes to pass increased background checks for gun purchases:
Rubio, you voted against this. I'll do EVERYTHING in my power 2C you NEVER become POTUS. I'll be the most politically active SOB in America.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) April 17, 2013
You tell 'em, Dan! Meanwhile, the economy still sucks ass, unemployment is ridiculously high, the debt and deficit -- the latter of which Boss Obama said he would halve by the end of his first term in office -- are astronomical, Gitmo remains open, Obama has increased the assault on civil liberties that the Left constantly bitched about for almost eight years under GW Bush ... but Slott will become the "most politically active SOB" around because one [GOP] Senator voted against what he wanted. And how dare Rubio? Doesn't he know who Slott is?? He writes Spider-Man, dammit!!
And let's throw in Slott with the anti-GOP Election Truthers like fellow comicbook moonbat Erik Larsen:
.@killinginist Yes. A very vocal minority. His name was Antonin Scalia. Welcome to America. Land of the Free.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) April 17, 2013
Got that? Somehow, being the writer of a major comicbook character automatically makes you a legal and historical genius! Who knew that one US Supreme Court justice made George W. Bush president in 2000? I'd ask Slott to explain that one -- like I asked for evidence that Fox News is "unequaled" when it comes to political sleaze -- but he's blocked me.
And here's another Slott "fact":
.@killinginist We do NOT have universal background checks in America. Only in around 60% of gun sales. This is NOT what 92% of us want.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) April 17, 2013
Only Obamanauts continually cite this fiction. The "Bubble," after all.
Slott has stated before he doesn't really care what consequences may come his way for being politically outspoken, I'll give him that, at least. But as has become quite evident, unfortunately he's just another far-left moonbat who exists in the "progressive" bubble where everyone agrees with one another, and pats each other on the back for believing in the "right" things. On the current issue, I happen to think expanding background checks is a good idea; however, the polls have consistently shown that gun control ranks low on the list of concerns the American people have these days. The aforementioned economy, unemployment and deficit/debt rank considerably higher. Hell, even "Ethical/Moral/Family Decline" ranks higher than gun control. And if Slott rants about the Senate doing "what the people want," then why doesn't it then ditch ObamaCare? Or, at least, make a major modification of it?
Ah, Dan ... keep on enjoying that comfy womb-like Bubble, amigo.
Why doesn't this surprise me? It never bothered MSNBC that this dope is a 9/11 Truther, so why should it bother them that he founded an anti-white, anti-Semitic college newspaper while a student at Emory?
Touré’s flagship publication, The Fire This Time, lavished praise on famous anti-Semites, black supremacists, and conspiracy theorists whom Touré helped bring to campus. Before he became an intense-but-sardonic TV personality, Touré also decried “the suffocating white community” and defended a nationally famous fake hate crime.
Some of the guest speakers personally invited by Touré to campus were:
The fake hate crime which Touré celebrated was that of Sabrina Collins, who as a freshman at Emory in 1992 reported that her "dormitory had been vandalized and racist words [were] written on her walls." Half a year later, Collins admitted she made the whole thing up. But that didn't deter Touré, no sir:
“In the aftermath,” Touré wrote in The Fire This Time, “THE POSSIBILITY THAT COLLINS HERSELF PERPETRATED THE CRIME HAS SEEMED TO MINIMIZE THE INCIDENT’S IMPORTANCE. IN ANALYZING THE EVENT’S IMPORTANCE TO EMORY, IT IS NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT IF COLLINS DID IT.” (Emphasis added by Touré.)
Kinda sounds like Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" reporting of George W. Bush's National Guard service, eh? At any rate, Touré used this fake happening to demand Emory mandate "an African American studies class as a distribution requirement.”
Today, Touré has no regrets about the Collins "incident," nor about whom he invited as guest speakers.
The thin skin of contemporary comics creators seemingly knows no bounds. Over at Doug Ernst's blog, Doug wrote a series of posts explaining why, in his view, Dan Slott's (at left) Superior Spider-Man is, well, anything but "superior." Slott became rather defensive on Twitter, especially about the argument over sales figures. Slott aggressively points out that Superior is one of the best selling titles in the biz today; Doug argues that was never his [main] point. You can read through the threads yourself (which I highly recommend). But an argument over sales figures isn't my point today.
The point today is ... why are modern comics creators so freakin' close-minded and defensive about any "negative" critique of the work (or views)? Do they honestly expect people to whisper sweet nothings in their ears and kiss their asses all the time? In the above case, why couldn't Slott just point out where he thought Doug was wrong, and do it in a civilized manner? And then be done with it? It's certainly not as if Doug's post wasn't well thought out, after all. What does screaming "IDIOT" multiple times at Doug do for Slott?
The debate caught the attention of Newsarama's Graeme McMillan, who wrote his own blog post about the back-and-forth. And for some reason, Mr. Ernst has been blocked from commenting there -- on a post dedicated to him. Read the comments. Tell me where Doug violated any sort of standard. Yeesh.
All this takes me back roughly fourteen years, to an e-mail convo I had with comics legend Kurt Busiek. Kurt advocated voicing one's displeasure over something by using more speech instead of an economic boycott (ie. not buying a writer's/artist's comics. My point at the time was that the average joe -- fan -- really had no medium by which to express his views. And they didn't. There were no blogs then, no social media ... only e-mail. Fast forward to the present day: Blogs. Facebook. Twitter. Innumerable ways for fans to express their opinions. But now, with these, that "fight speech with more speech" mantra seems to have been tossed aside. Creators like Busiek block people from merely following them on Twitter (and elsewhere). And, again, it's not because of profanity, slurs, or anything similar. It's only because they don't like what we have to say.
Back to Slott: I respect and appreciate what he said here, about knowing that taking a particular political stance may alienate a lot of readers, because doing the opposite "would be selling myself out." I guess Dan isn't similarly concerned about how he interacts with fans ... especially those who simply disagree with him.
If he bothers to interact with them at all, that is.
After all, the Third Reich effected the most thorough genocide of the 20th century, did they not?
Tim Graham at Newsbusters highlights the "progressive" penchant for tolerance, empathy and understanding ... except for when they disagree with you. In this case it's the WaPo's "humor" writer Gene Weingarten who "jokes" about St. Peter shooting the NRA's Wayne LaPierre in the crotch area:
I shall write some verse for my tomorrow's chat
About the Antichrist, a fetid presence in the air --
I speak of Lucifer, Old Scratch, the Stygian bat,
That dastard, truth's assassin: Wayne LaPierre.
Twenty children dead, and also adults six
Slain by yet another madman a-hole with a gun
Too easily obtain'd; Wayn'd solve it with a fix--
More arms for a-holes! That's the ticket, son.
In Wayne's World, no problem lacks a cure:
Violence begets violence, so he'll say
Arm yourself some more, to feel secure
Against the guy who we armed yesterday,
Others in the public eye are filth and slime
(O'Reilly milks our hate and offers bitter brew on tap)
But Wayne's misdeeds will more withstand the test of time --
Standing as he does before us, unashamed and full of crap.
A toast then, to our friend Wayne LaPierre
For whom gun deaths have been a lucky totem
Methinks St. Peter will espy him, standing there
And smile, and aim a 30-30 at his scrotum.
Nice. I wonder if this brilliant "humorist" ever saw fit to write a "funny" poem about another controversial topic that has to do with human lives (and the elimination thereof) -- something like, y'know, abortion. If so, maybe it went something like this:
Millions of babies killed for convenience
"Hands of my body" scream the liberal pundits
Concerned more about criminals and capital punishment
"Celebrates death!" they say to our amusement
Maybe St. Peter will have harsh words for Blackmun
Smiting him down with an illegal handgun.
Gee, can I have a job now as a "humorist?" Unlikely. Hypocritical lunkheads like Weingarten will dub my screed "sexist" and "patriarchal" and then blacklist me as "one of them."
Avi discovers that a "progressive" comics writer whom I actually admire felt the need to back up a colleague, despite said colleague being hypocritical ... and childish. Yep, Kurt Busiek tweeted, in apparent response to the conversation between Ron Marz, myself and Doug Ernst,
Our lesson for today seems to be that expressing conservative opinions is free speech but expressing liberal opinions is bad.
To say this is a ridiculous response does a disservice to the term "ridiculous." Not to mention, it's not even logical -- "free speech" and "bad" have nothing to do with one another. And, it's hypocritical in that it's been Orson Scott Card's speech that has been deemed "bad" among the liberal comics guys, enough to want him dismissed from writing for DC.
Look, I am, and always will be, a big fan of Busiek's comics work. Although a "progressive," he rarely, if ever, pushes an agenda in his stories. And when he is political, he's pretty fair about seeing both sides. (Consider his volume 3 Avengers work beginning in the late 1990s and the controversy surrounding the addition of Triathlon to Earth's Mightiest, as an example.) But in social media, like here, he can be just plain silly. Why is it OK for Marz to scream "STFU" on Twitter about gun rights, but not OK for me to tongue-in-cheekly write "Shut up and write" in a blog post comment? Not to mention, as we've pointed out here many times, when a conservative theme may be utilized in a comics story, it's "controversial."
So ... Kurt -- it seems that lesson is "that expressing conservative opinions is bad but expressing liberal opinions is perfectly A-OK."
As creator Mark Waid was fond of saying recently (regarding the Orson Scott Card matter), free speech doesn't come without consequences. Indeed it does not. Which is a point I relayed to Busiek a long time ago in an e-mail conversation. Kurt's response was that he didn't like so-called "economic boycotts;" he preferred to battle words with words -- for example, precisely what I, Avi Green, Doug Ernst, Carl and others have been doing. Of course, when Kurt and I had that past convo, social media was virtually non-existent, and blogs were in their infancy. But now that regular joes like me have [a lot more of a] voice, he doesn't like it much, it seems.
Nevertheless, let's get back to focusing on the actual matter at hand: Again, Waid's point about free speech and consequences is 100% correct. Waid (and many others) exercised these "consequences" with Card because of his [controversial] views on homosexuals and gay marriage. The hypocrisy part comes in in that why, if Card can be shoved aside for his views, cannot Waid, Marz, Busiek, or whoever else be ostracized for theirs? Many people demanded Card be axed by DC for his views. (Waid says it's about Card's actions because he sits on the board of the National Organization for Marriage; I already argued that there is little substantive difference between this "action" and someone in a lofty position like Waid using social media or whatever to espouse his opinions.) I, and every other person I know on the other side of the aisle, would never demand a liberal creator be fired for his opinions (or "actions" like Card's ... unless it was criminal, of course). We'd merely not support such a creator with our wallets.
Which, again, is the point I made to Busiek that long time ago ... and most recently to Marz. If you want to spout off on personal political views on social media, then don't be surprised if you piss a lot of people off. And Kurt's desire for "battling words with words" apparently was either phony or short-lived, for he blocked me on Twitter for reasons I presume have something to do with opining about his personal politics in the past, as have Waid and conspiratorial nut-case Erik Larsen.
Some "battle," eh? At least Marz has kept an open Twitter feed, and others like Dan Slott are at least very honest about why they'll share political opinions regardless of any economic consequences. Even ultra-liberal Mark Millar said Card shouldn't be dismissed because, basically, who says Busiek, Waid or whoever won't be next for their opinions?
After checking out this post by Avi over at FCMM, I Tweeted the link and included comic guy Ron Marz on the Tweet. You can read what transpired after that on our Twitter feed. Like Mark Waid, Marz appears to be yet another "progressive" who wants his cake and eat it too. For instance, Marz told me I "didn't have the right" to tell him to "Shut up and write" (I wrote that in the comments at the link above). However, Marz said precisely this when gun rights advocates defended themselves in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. His rationale? Dead kids.
Yep. Gun rights advocates defending themselves from the extreme emotionalism of people like Marz have to shut up. Y'know, because. But how dare I tell him to quit spouting off with, "progressive" talking points, alienating approximately half his audience. (I was exaggerating, of course, as I told him via Twitter; Marz, certainly, is perfectly free to say anything he wishes.)
As I learned (and later on, Douglas Ernst), Marz clearly isn't interested in a real discussion. I certainly appreciated the time he took to dialogue with me; however, he certainly wasn't very serious. Take a gander:
"Big-boy conversations" and "hard time," @douglasernst? I don' think I'm comfortable with where this is going anymore...— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) March 8, 2013
Whoa! How witty! And how 'bout that -- Marz makes a homophobic "joke" ... and during the current imbroglio regarding Orson Scott Card. Wow. But don't expect Marz to get any grief for his comment, of course. He's a liberal.
Perhaps the following Tweet perfectly exemplifies the outlook of people like Marz -- who have gained a bit of fame -- towards potential customers who dare to differ with them:
@whoajordie Sometimes you just wanna burn ants with a magnifying glass, you know?:)— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) March 8, 2013
After Card's artist on the story (Chris Sprouse) bolted due to the [predictable] media uproar over Card's "homophobia, sorry, gay marriage opposition'” (real cute there, author Graeme McMillan) DC has announced that the Superman story by Card will be put on hold:
As a result, the Orson Scott Card story (co-written with Aaron Johnston, Card’s writing partner on Marvel’s Ender’s Game comics) will not appear in either the digital or print editions of Adventures of Superman, the upcoming anthology series launching later this year; instead, it will be replaced by a story by respected creators Jeff Parker and Chris Samnee, with the print edition featuring the Parker/Samnee collaboration in addition to work by Justin Jordan and Riley Rossmo, as well as Jeff Lemire. Because of this last-minute substitution, the first print issue of Adventures of Superman will be made returnable to comic stores that have already ordered it.
The news has inspired speculation about whether or not this could mean that DC will quietly kill off the controversial Card story entirely, with some suggesting that the story remaining un-illustrated gives the publisher an “out” to avoid any potential breach-of-contract legal response.
So there we have it. As I Tweeted to the "witty" Mark Waid (who posted plenty of Tweets in favor of this occurrence), maybe next time it will be him ... for something controversial HE may say. Or do. Or anyone of these guys ... who actually put personal political views in their stories (and there's plenty more), unlike Card.
Jeffrey Meyer has more at Newsbusters.
Comics guy Mark Waid, who makes a ton of money and has a very successful career, bafflingly is an incredibly angry man. He's still really pissed off about this post, insisting I "lied" about him and his views. Here's a sampling of his umbrage from Twitter last night:
In response to Douglas Ernst's comments about Waid's profanity:
In response to my comments about Waid's selective choice of "actionable actions" that can be used to legitimately fire a writer (like Orson Scott Card from Superman):
Waid then accuses me of "prosecuting him":
Waid then accuses me of selective editing to make me look good, and him bad:
After I tell him "Pot, Kettle," Waid then offers up this:
I'll grant that the "racist" remark was made in jest (I really don't think Waid is that far gone, like Rachel Maddow apparently is regarding SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia), but he's way off on my being "pro-NOM" (National Organization for Marriage). Couldn't be farther from the truth. The fact is, I vehemently disagree with Orson Scott Card's views on homosexuals, and specifically with regards to gay "marriage," I couldn't care less about it. In my view, if gay Americans are granted the same benefits as heterosexual couples in civil unions, the matter is settled.
If you're like Waid and believe I "edit things to my favor," don't just take my word about all the above quotes. Merely visit my Twitter feed and read the exchanges for yourself.
Here's how "illiterate" I am:
1) Waid says "I NEVER said you can't have guns." In my post I wrote "Are the many comments made by your colleagues (and perhaps yourself) regarding, say, the NRA "hateful" and "bullying," Mr. Waid?" I [clearly] added the "perhaps" there because unlike other outspoken comics creators, I haven't yet encountered any specific anti-gun comments by Waid.
2) Waid then whines "... and the quote YOU RAN shows it DOES cut both ways." But he's only talking here about a person's held beliefs. He said a person's actions are what make the difference. (Addendum: To be clear, Waid ALSO means actions apply to people of both political stripes. But he has a narrow VIEW of what constitutes "actionable actions." Just to be clear and thorough. -- Hube)
To which I wrote:
What substantive difference is there between Card serving on a board of a group like the National Organization for Marriage (his so-called "actions") and/or his writing about topics like gay marriage, and you opining on matters political/cultural via myriad social media outlets? You are a high-profile writer just as Card is. His avenues of expressing his opinion(s) are not significantly different from yours.
So, contrary to Waid's assertion, I clearly did read what he said about Mr. Card and responded accordingly. If Waid wants to clarify that Marvel, DC or whoever can can him for what he says about controversial matters political/cultural in social media, blogs or wherever, then fine. Again, there's little substantive difference between Card sitting on a board of an organization that advocates something and him writing about the same subject, and Waid or anyone else using their high profile status to communicate about issues via whatever avenue they utilize.
Let's face it: Among most contemporary comics creators (and "progressives" in general) there are some issues which are perfectly acceptable to criticize with little repercussions. Gun control/hatred of the NRA (National Rifle Association) is one of these. Being against gay marriage like Orson Scott Card is, however, anathema. This is why I Tweeted to Waid in response to his foul-mouthed reply that he simply "wants his cake and eat it too."
Injecting "progressive" politics into comics stories is perfectly legit -- it's "topical" and "relevant." We've documented countless examples here at Colossus (and elsewhere). And most recently, writer Gail Simone is working on a comic dedicated to the Occupy movement. On the other hand, Orson Scott Card's views are a "dire emergency," and even accomplished creator Frank Miller's desire to have Batman take on al Qaeda was met with criticism and controversy.
UPDATE: Carl reminds us how "tolerant" Waid was back when some Captain America issues disparaged the Tea Party: "[Waid] is humiliated and mortified on behalf of my entire industry that Fox News is able to bully us into apologizing to lunatics."
Via Robot 6: Brazilian pop artist Butcher Billy has created a "real life" Legion of Supervillains, and guess who made the list alongside such notorious figures as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Osama bin Laden? Yep, George W. Bush.
Article author Mark Kardwell [rightly] questions the inclusion of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg too ("[He] isn’t exactly a genocidal tyrant"), yet -- nary a word about our last president. Say it with me: BOOOR-INGGG.
Commenter Brian's sarcasm nails it: "Painting George Bush Jr as villain. That’s edgy and inventive :-p"
... and as such, he is under fire from the ever-hypocritical intolerant tolerant Left:
Comic giant DC has commissioned Orson Scott Card, author of the award-winning and best-selling Ender's Game sci-fi series, to write for DC's Adventures of Superman series. The digital comic is set to be published in April.
The news has sparked a furious backlash from Card's critics. Card is a long-time critic of homosexuality and has called gay marriage "the end of democracy in America". In 2009 he became a board member of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that campaigns against same-sex marriage.
"Superman stands for truth, justice and the American way. Orson Scott Card does not stand for any idea of truth, justice or the American way that I can subscribe to," said Jono Jarrett of Geeks Out, a gay fan group. "It's a deeply disappointing and frankly weird choice."
Fellow comics writer Gail Simone has publicly called out Card on Twitter, saying "I have no use for Card or his anti-gay activism whatsoever, period." Which is perfectly fine. But a lot of folks don't have use for your views on certain matters, Gail -- like gun control, for instance.
The aforementioned Jono Jarrett of Geeks Out, wants Card off the Superman book:
"If this was a Holocaust denier or a white supremacist, there would be no question. Hiring that writer would be an embarrassment to your company. Well, Card is an embarrassment to your company, DC. And of all the characters Card could have been hired to write, you give him Superman? The character that taught me to lead by example? To do the right thing, even when it was hard? To keep going, even when it seemed hopeless? What an insult. Kids are killing themselves. They are killing themselves in a climate of intolerance and homophobia publicly fostered by people like Orson Scott Card. You don't have to contribute to this. You shouldn't. You mustn't."
Ah yes, the insanely ridiculous comparisons come forth. Holocaust denial? Puh-lease. Yes, Card is opposed to gay "marriage." Does this mean he hates gay people, though? I don't know if he does or not (I doubt it; the Left, however, always has a predilection to conflate opposition to something they favor as "hatred") but a sizable portion of the American public feels as Card. Are these people entitled, say, to employment for feeling as they do, Mr. Jarrett? How is opposition to gay "marriage" but being for civil unions with the same rights as "marriage" "homophobic?" Further, is Gail Simone also "intolerant" and an "embarrassment" for her views ... on the Second Amendment? Why or why not?
The last couple of days I've traded some tweets with a gent who thinks it's silly to refuse to buy comics from outspoken creators and/or creators who infuse their titles with preachy politics. As I've stated here and elsewhere, I will buy a good story from a creator whose views differ from mine (like Mark Millar's Superman: Red Son of Kurt Busiek's Avengers Forever); however, when such political preachiness in the comics and/or in social media becomes such that it essentially calls you stupid for the [contrary] views you hold, then that's when I'll keep the $3.99 in my pocket.
Carl's Comics has more.
As JWF says, "Floyd Corkins would be a household name by now if he attacked a liberal group." As such, no one cares because he "only" attacked the Family Research Council.
The ridiculous mainstream media -- which will immediately pounce on ANYTHING remotely related to a conservative group when there's any sort of seemingly politically related violence -- could care less that this Corkins guy said he picked his target from the Southern Poverty Law Center's "hate map."
Gee, remember when Sarah Palin was to blame because she had a "target" map designating Democrats who the GOP should try to beat in Arizona ... and how said map was "responsible" for the nut who shot Gabby Giffords?
F*** you, MSM.
MSNBC guest host decries "hateful language" while, well, engaging in just that:
“We had evangelical Latinos wanting to meet with Howard Dean at the DNC,” said Finney, who served as Democratic National Committee communications director at the time. “That’s a shift, right?”
“We saw in droves the Latino community moving over to the Democratic Party largely because of the tone,” Finney continued. “Even Republicans in the Republican Party who were Latino just disgusted with the tone.”
“Those crazy crackers on the right, if they start with their very hateful language, that is going to kill them in the same way that they learned, at their little retreat, let’s not talking about rape,” Finney concluded.
But keep in mind -- "progressives" are ALL ABOUT tolerance and understanding!
You'd think comicbook creators would have just a modicum of common sense. Apparently not Ron Marz who, in response to increased gun sales after Boss Obama's re-election and then the shooting in Newtown, CT, wrote: "That strikes me as pathetic and sad."
"Sad" I can perhaps understand (given its myriad connotations), but why is it "pathetic?" Why is it not a perfectly rational response by those who worry that the right to possess a firearm may become severely curtailed -- especially by a guy who 1) has previously expressed outright hostility to the 2nd Amendment, and 2) is a habitual liar (too many links to include for this one).
Indeed, again, what is pathetic are individuals like Marz -- whose very industry survives on depicted violence -- who believe those who feel differently than he are "sad" and "pathetic" ... because they believe government "cares" about you and me.
(h/t to FCMM.)
This past weekend a furor erupted in southern Delaware as radio talk show host Dan Gaffney snapped some photos of signs posted at Milford School District playgrounds -- signs in English and in Spanish ... but with two totally different meanings. The English sign merely states that parental supervision is required at the playgrounds, while the Spanish version states that permission/a permit must first be obtained, and violators could be prosecuted.
So if you are a white English speaking “American,” you can play here at your own risk so long as you have a parent or guardian watching. If you are brown, if you dare play here without a permit we will arrest your immigrant ass. That is the fucking height of racism, and I will see to it that who ever [sic] is responsible for this sign will have their public careers ended immediately.
... this is not a #fail situation. This is intentional.
As you probably know, Delaware Douche has a habit of anointing himself the "moral arbiter" of pretty much everything. Remember, his belief that the GOP's advocacy of deregulation and their supposed "greed" meant that they should all be "rounded up and shot." This past weekend on Facebook, DD lambasted those who suggested that the sign mix-up may simply have been [an unfortunate] mistake: "Stop defending racists," he told one commenter.
But lo and behold, it appears those who advised not being hasty were correct: as you can see in this photo, the English sign says precisely what the Spanish sign says. The signs here are located at a sports field/complex; however, as noted above, the differing signs are located some playgrounds. It seems that somebody simply screwed up -- signs meant for sports fields/complexes were inadvertently placed at playgrounds. The News Journal eventually covered the story, and Milford Superintendent Phyllis Kohel confirms the mix-up:
Matched English and Spanish versions of the signs mentioning permits are posted at sports fields in other schools in the district, Kohel said. They went up at those sites because a glut of adult recreation sports teams were using the public fields, sometimes during school hours. School officials had met with the teams and amiably worked out a permit system, she said.
“That’s why those signs, which say you must have permission to play, were created,” Kohel said. But about a year ago, when new playground equipment was added to the elementary schools, the Spanish version of the same sign was posted by mistake, she said, along with the more lenient English signs.
Kohel herself worked to remove the signs as soon as she was alerted to the discrepancy in message.
Were the differing signs hurtful and just plain wrong? Of course. Was their placement intentional? It certainly seems not. I am guessing that some non-Spanish-speaking maintenance workers put up the signs ... and lamentably didn't know any better.
Meanwhile, personally I got a kick out of those who became sudden "experts" on the Spanish language during this imbroglio. For example, LGOMB commenter "Aoine" writes
USTEDES- very rude and aggressive form of address. A friend put it like this: ” it’s like someone goes up to a groups and says, HEY, YOU ALL, YEAH YOU ALL, THERE, YEAH, YOU, while pointing their finger at you all, in the group.
In Spanish the personal pronoun is only used with the verb for emphasis, generally the ending on the verb denotes the WHO, I.e. necessitas. One needs, or you ( plural form) needs.
Uh, no. As you may know, I've spoken and taught Spanish for over twenty years. I'm loath to say "never" about anything related to the language's grammar and especially vocabulary (since there are many, many differences among the many Spanish-speaking nations), but in all my years I've never heard that "ustedes" (or "Uds.") is a "very rude and aggressive form of address." If so, then I wonder why my in-laws in Costa Rica always use it, why they take no offense when I use it with them, and why my Mexican, Dominican, Venezuelan and Puerto Rican friends have never taken offense when I've used it ... not to mention that they frequently use it themselves.
Scott Compton, an English teacher at Chapin High School in Chapin, S.C., apparently threw an American flag onto the floor, and proceeded to stomp on it -- in front of three of his classes:
“He drew a couple of symbols, like one of them was a cross, and he said, ‘What does this represent,’ and everybody said, ‘Christianity,’” [parent Michael] Copeland explained to WIS.
“Then he proceeds to take down the American flag, and said, ‘This is a symbol, but it’s only a piece of cloth. It doesn’t mean anything,’ and then he throws it down on the floor and then stomps on it, repeatedly,” Copeland continued.
“I asked what was he trying to get, the point across? And she (Copeland's daughter) said, ‘I don’t know,’ and he said, his explanation was there would be no consequences, it’s just a piece of cloth that doesn’t mean anything.”
*Sigh* Well, it could be that Compton was attempting to explain that here in these United States, a person can stomp on the flag without consequences. Such an act is protected by the First Amendment ... within certain parameters, of course. Profanity is protected speech, too, but Compton isn't permitted to use it in school due to the nature of his job.
Mark Bounds, a spokesperson for the school district, told WIS that the district frequently cautions teachers to avoid introducing personal opinions in the classroom.
According to FITSNews, a South Carolina-based conservative news and entertain website, people in the Chapin High community describe Compton a “good teacher” who is “very liberal” and “wears it on his sleeve in the classroom.”
*Double sigh* What is this predilection among some in our craft that makes them believe they're entitled to lecture their captive audiences rather than to teach? Why are they afraid to point out different points of view and let the students decide? In this case, why wouldn't it have been sufficient to merely tell students (if this was indeed a lesson on free speech) that one can stomp on the American flag (provided it is your own, not on someone else's property, etc.)?
I thought "progressives" were all about "sensitivity" and "tolerance?" Uh huh. Everyone but hardcore "progressives" know that is a total crock. Things "progressives" abhor are NOT to be tolerated -- because they're (to the dogmatic "progressive") inherently bad, and even evil.
DesMoines Register columnist Donald Kaul -- who, it notes, suffered a heart attack back in July -- had better simmer down about gun control, or he'll endanger his health (again). He sounds just like Delaware's own Delaware Dem of the LGOMB, who once advocated "rounding up all Republicans" and shooting them:
• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.
• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.
Dare I say "remember this" the next time some "progressive" dolt yammers about "civil dialogue"?
Kaul also wants a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. But in order to do what he wants above, he'll need that first. (And he did put that first in his bullet point list, by the way.) And the chances of such a repeal are incredibly slim to less than none. (Indeed -- if possible, the chances would be a negative integer.)
It truly is amazing how "tolerant" "progressives" pick and choose who their enemies are. Radical Islamic fundie terrorists who spare nothing to behead those whom they despise (meaning virtually everybody) are treated with kid gloves by these "progressives" ("Be sensitive and tolerant!" we're told, "Give them constitutional rights!" etc. etc. etc.), yet, stupefyingly, these fundies are remarkably similar to people like Daul. Seriously. "Progressives" frequently compare fundies like al Qaeda and the Taliban to conservative Americans; however, when has a conservative American penned something like Daul in a mainstream periodical -- advocating torturing politicians who disagree with them on policy, and murdering those who refuse to follow [an unjust] law??
I like Glenn Reynolds' retort:
This kind of talk makes me want to buy an assault rifle. Or twelve. And really, dude, the fact that you’re angry doesn’t give you some sort of a pass from the norms of civil society. Or, if it does, be prepared to tolerate a lot of things that you’ll find intolerable. Because, you know, a lot of people are angry.
... we take a gander at some of the dopier comments and suggestions regarding guns and public safety.
-- Moonbat Cali Senator Barbara Boxer wants to use the National Guard in the nation's schools.
-- "How in the World Did This Dope Get a Gig" Touré says the NRA wants the mass killing of children.
-- CNN's Piers Morgan calls a pro-2nd Amendment guest "unbelievably stupid," "dangerous," and a "shame" to the country.
-- The NY Times' Helene Cooper says we all have to choose between our 2nd Amendment rights and kids being safe in school.
-- MSDNC's Thomas Roberts: "We need to just be complacent in the fact that we can send our children to school to be assassinated?”
-- Washington Post editor and Barack Obama biographer David Maraniss on Boss Obama's prayer vigil speech in Connecticut: "People will long remember what Barack Obama said in Newtown ... his Gettysburg address."
-- MSDNC's Ed Schultz's anti-gun rights venom: Founding Fathers just "some dead people."
-- CNN's Don Lemon: "We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets. They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children."
-- Democrat New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler: "We have a lobby, the leadership of the NRA, who function as enablers of mass murder. And that's what they are. They're enablers of mass murder."
-- University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis: “Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children. Now I want [NRA chief] Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick. You are g*dd*mn right we should politicize this tragedy. F**k the NRA.”
Steve Newton at DE Libertarian has, as usual, a thoughtful post up today about what to do regarding guns in America. He highlights the American government's track record of violence as a ... "measure":
The problem with the call that "This. Has. To. Stop." is that much of the underlying culture of violence has been perpetuated by the government -- especially for the past forty years -- and that asking for solutions from the government when violence is the problem is, well, problematic.
We are killing other people's kids around the world every day in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Honduras. There's an important if unlovely and uncomfortable point to be reinforced here: dead Pakistani school children at the hands of US drones no less constitute young lives pointlessly snuffed out, with grieving parents who have emptiness in their souls than the children who will never come back to their bedrooms in Connecticut.
We are the world's largest exporter of weapons. We spend more on weapons for our "defense" than the rest of the world combined. That, "They are coming to get us" mentality within the US is exactly the mentality that politicians of all parties use with reference to the rest of the world, so why should you be surprised to see it echoed internally. It's fractal, I think.
Violence in America is in part so prevalent because, despite our mantra of freedom, the power of the State is as pre-conditioned to the use of violence as those paranoid nuts that pandora believes should not own guns.
pandora being of the LGOMB, of course.
Speaking of the LGOMB, Steve also shreds the execrable Delaware Douche, whose actual appearance is as disgusting as his moronic invective. If you can get past DD's asininity, you might actually find some agreement -- like I did.
Douche then says:
Next step, anyone caught with an illegally purchased gun or a banned gun is sentenced to life in prison, or permanent deportation from the United States. Your choice.
This is just a tad of the absurdity in the vast majority of the rest of this idiot's post. Like, yeah -- a battered wife who fears for her life as a last resort purchases and illegal gun to protect herself. She should go to prison for the rest of her life. Right. Yet Douche scoffs and screams when anyone even suggests any sort of criminal penalty for a late term abortion simply for convenience. Not to mention, isn't it the "progressives" who scream loudest about the US having the largest prison population on the planet?
Douche also blames -- wait for it! -- Ronald Reagan for the lack of mental health care. Uh huh. Sorry, Douche, but your kindred spirits bear a lot of blame for that one. And it was in the name of civil liberties that they did what they did. Y'know, civil liberties which the 2nd Amendment is a part of. But we know very well by now that for radical moonbats like Delaware Douche, some liberties are more important than others. And they're the ones that radical moonbats like. It's that simple.
It's always amusing to occasionally venture over to the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers' place to see what lunacy has been going. Today, pandora writes about how the country "has lost its mind" because there was another shooting -- this time at a school in Connecticut. Naturally, these so-called "progressives" have a problem with the 2nd Amendment:
pandora: Hard to keep up with all these responsible gun owners. If only those 5th graders had been armed. I’m so sick of this.
Naturally, because of some freak, ALL gun owners -- the vast majority of which ARE responsible -- should be disarmed.
Is this really the price we continue to pay for freedom?
Yes, it is the price we pay for freedom. Because the freedom for the vast majority -- responsible people -- means there will always be a few irresponsible sickos who do what this vile specimen did in CT.
Then there's the illustrious Delaware Dem, whose invective is about as disturbing as his appearance:
A hearty fuck you to the NRA.
Ah! Maybe DD can round up all NRA members and have them shot?
Gun lovers: what’s more sacred? The life of a child, or a self-serving misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment? (Don’t bother answering).
Question 1: What "misinterpretation" of the 2nd Amendment abounds? Question 2: You actually ask the first part of your question when it's "progressives" who are the ones who prefer the killing of children with their "pro-choice at all times" stance?
The NRA is a terrorist organization and should be dealt with accordingly.
But of course! Again, they should all be rounded up and shot -- seriously. Right, DD?
Then, pandora agrees with DD that everyone should watch coverage of the shooting:
Everyone should watch every second of this. Maybe then we can actually discuss this.
LOL! But you don't WANT a discussion about it, pandora! You want people who believe in gun rights to accept YOUR beliefs.
There's assorted other snarky comments in there, about just what you'd expect. But ultimately it's not surprising at all that these peons want gun rights eradicated. They believe in government, after all -- that it can do anything. But do you trust government to protect you if you're threatened ... and your 2nd Amendment rights have been stripped? Y'know, like the government protected our personnel in Benghazi? Like it took care of its citizens in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy?
Don't be fooled. These cretins will spout off about mythical "misinterpretations" of the 2nd Amendment until the cows come home, but you can bet they'll be the first to nab a handgun in order to protect themselves if/when they realize government can't -- and won't -- protect them. It's exactly like how they yammer about how taxes should be higher, yet they do everything they can to avoid paying them. And remember how after 9/11 and other assorted instances of radical Islamic terror we were constantly reminded by the LGOMB about "tolerance" and "understanding," and how not all Muslims are terrorists, etc. This same message doesn't apply to law-abiding American gun owners, or the completely lawful National Rifle Association. The former should be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights, and the latter is a "terrorist" organization.
Remember the words of William S. Burroughs: “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”
One last thing: These faux empaths are having a pow-wow this evening so they can feel good about themselves in part by collecting goods for the local food bank. But you can bet that if someone came in wearing an NRA hat, they'd have their canned goods thrown right back at 'em. Your contributions must be pure. Because that's how the LGOMB roll.
Lack of media coverage of deceased Latina music star Jenni Rivera = RACISM.
Black ESPN commentator calls Redskins QB Robert Griffin III ("RG3") a “cornball brother" because he's is engaged to a white woman, and could be a Republican = NOT RACISM.
If they can't forcibly silence their opponents, then jail 'em!
Yep, that's Harry Belafonte on Al Sharpton's MSDNC show, saying that Boss Obama should “work like a Third World dictator and just put all these guys in jail.” Because, they're "violating" the American people's "desire" (Boss Obama's agenda).
Senility has clearly set in with Mr. Tally Me Banana. He says the American "have matured" because they elected Boss Obama (twice), and they clearly want his agenda. What he fails to note, obviously, is that in 2010 the American people clearly sent Boss Obama a message with the House elections that they didn't like a lot of his agenda, and in 2012 they kept these same Republicans in the [clear] majority there.
No wonder Belafonte wants political opponents jailed. He's a big buddy of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, after all.
Gag video mocks Harrisburg, PA's mayor = RACISM.
Jamie Foxx jokes about killing all the white people in his latest movie = NOT RACISM.
The NY Times' Maureen Dowd says that the GOP is a "universe of arrogant, uptight, entitled, bossy, retrogressive white guys" = NOT RACISM.
Boss Obama's 2008 inauguration reverend claims "all whites are going to hell" = NOT RACISM.
Documentarian Ken Burns claims a friend of his attended a Tea Party meeting once, and "almost every one she met there invoked the 'n-word' about the president." Yeah -- I guess that's sort of like someone saying "some of my best friends are black." Puh-lease.
Recall that despite myriad claims that [Tea Party] protesters hurled racial epithets at black members of Congress during the ObamaCare showdown, not a single piece of audio or video evidence ever came forth to substantiate such claims (even from Jesse Jackson Jr. who had a video camera at the event). Even after Andrew Breitbart offered $10,000 for such proof. (And despite this, the MSM still reported on the supposed epithets as fact.)
Burns has recently put out a film titled "'The Central Park Five,' a documentary detailing how five innocent teens were convicted of a horrific rape which shocked the Big Apple back in 1989." Maybe Burns could next turn his docu-eye on another 1980s travesty of justice, Al Sharpton and the infamous Tawana Brawley case. Burns also claims "there wouldn't be a birther movement with a President Joe Biden in the White House." Actually, if Joe Biden had purposely sold himself as a foreign student like Boss Obama did, that claim would be inaccurate.
*Yawn* Just another day in Racerville.
ITEM! Chris Matthews compares the GOP to -- wait for it! -- Hitler! Because of the 1936 Berlin Olympics and Jesse Owens. Or something.
ITEM! Slate writer Ron Rosenbaum says that if you prefer the white meat of the turkey, that could mean -- wait for it! -- you're racist!! (I swear, you can't make this sh** up!)
ITEM! Award winning actor Jamie Foxx at the Soul Train Awards last evening said to "give an honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama. Barack Obama.” Wow, and there was an old "progressive" commenter at this site who used to berate me for using the moniker "Messiah" for our president!
Boss Barack Obama has won a second term by a wide electoral margin, but the Left is still crying "racism" every chance they can get. And why not, really? As utterly ludicrous as many -- most -- of the charges are, apparently enough bozos buy 'em ... and then vote on 'em. Whether they're black or white.
The most recent case in point is a former far-left Delaware blogger who wrote on Facebook last evening (no link provided as I am not certain he would appreciate and/or authorize such, especially as I am FB friends with him) that the GOP was showing its "true" racist colors because they apparently only go after the African-Americans in the Boss Obama administration. (He writes that Republicans have "hated" Obama, Eric Holder and Susan Rice "the most.") The most recent of these is the last listed, our UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Rice has gotten heat for going on numerous Sunday talk shows right after the Benghazi attacks in Libya, and parroting the now-debunked line that a silly anti-Islam YouTube video. Boss Obama acted all tough yesterday in defending Rice stating, "Come after me." (Of course, he made little sense in that defense for, if Rice "knew nothing" of Benghazi, then WTF was she doing out there on all those talk shows??)
Then there's Eric Holder. Indeed, I suppose "Fast and Furious" has absolutely nothing to do with how the opposition views him, not to mention his department's views on enforcing civil rights laws.
Heck, I'll even add Van Jones in there for good measure. Indeed, why in the world did he get so much crap? I mean, it's not like he was a well known 9/11 Truther or anything!!
But this is all beside the point. This far-left former DE blogger only has his [very] skewed opinion that the blacks in the administration are "hated" more than others. He has absolutely no proof of this other than some GOP legislators criticizing them. Obama appointed numerous African-Americans to various positions, and if they suck at the job, what are people -- especially the opposition -- supposed to say? "Oh, sorry, you're black. You're doing just wonderfully!!"?? This, I believe, is known as the bigotry of low expectations. Does anyone seriously believe that if this was a GOP administration that the attorney general would not get any heat from a Democratic House about "Fast and Furious"? Does anyone seriously believe that members of a Democratic House would not excoriate a GOP-appointed UN ambassador for going on myriad Sunday talk shows to forward a lie about an attack on a US consulate that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including an ambassador?? If you do not believe these things wouldn't happen, you're a nut. Period.
Our former far-left DE blogger conveniently forgets administration members like Tim Geithner. The GOP was all over him for not paying his taxes, and most recently about the Libor rate-rigging scandal. Then there's the favorite target of Delaware edu-blogger Kilroy, Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Duncan's tenure as head of Chicago schools has been panned by many, not to mention the whole federal Race to the Top initiative (frequently -- and rightly -- dubbed "No Child Left Behind on steroids") is one huge wasteful boondoggle. Ask any teacher that is signed on to it (like here in DE), conservative or liberal. They'll confirm such.
It's pretty damn unbecoming that a person such as this former blogger who prides himself on being such an intellectual (and he is) so easily falls prey to the specious "racism" canard whenever it's convenient, or when there's some heat being put on a few officials who just happen to be black. On the one hand, it's not surprising that so-called "progressives" feel that African-Americans, whether gov. officials or not, should be held to a different -- i.e. lower standard. They feel this way in other realms of life, after all (employment, education). On the other, if this is the excuse that will continually be utilized, then why not just give their positions to some Caucasians so at least critics can question them and complain about them without the PC police constantly harassing them?
Via the Newsbusters e-mail tipline:
I have voted both Republican and Democrat in past elections. I find your site is an insult to all intelligent Americans. This right winged site skewed [sic] to pander to the millions of (tea party, racist, biggoted [sic] and ever [sic] other dispiscable [sic] word used to discribe [sic] the worst in people). How sad for America that our politcal landscape features, [sic] lies, cheating and pandering to the religious right.
Of course, if this was Mitt Romney's LDS pastor (do they call them "pastors?"), the mainstream media would pound this for days. As it is, a small outlet in Georgia reports the following (via the Georgia Tipsheet):
[Dr. James] Lowery said that when he was a young militant, he used to say all white folks were going to hell. Then he mellowed and just said most of them were. Now, he said, he is back to where he was.
"I'm frightened by the level of hatred and bitterness coming out in this election," said Lowery.
Reverend Wright, Dr. Lowery, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayers ... yeah, we're all supposed to believe that Boss Obama shares nothing in common with what these folks fundamentally believe.
Yeah. Again, just imagine if Romney had even the remotest connection to someone like them on the other side of the poli spectrum.
Check out how "tolerant" "progressives" express themselves regarding a possible Mitt Romney victory next month.
"Crazy" Larry O'Donnell, who's SOOOO tough he refuses to criticize [radical] Islam for fear of his safety/life, goes instead after another easy target -- Mitt Romney's son:
Showing how much MSNBC is in the tank for Barack Obama, Lawrence O’Donnell put on a rather unprofessional tough-guy act and challenged Tagg Romney to a fist fight on Thursday night's edition of his program.
“So, you want to take a swing at someone for calling your old man a liar? Take a swing at me. Come on. Come on,” he said, responding to Romney's statement that he felt like taking a swing at Barack Obama for calling his father a liar in the second debate,
Romney said that he wanted to "jump out of [his] seat and … rush down to the debate stage and take a swing at [Obama].”
Ooooooh, what a "tough guy" admitted socialist O'Donnell is. Wants a scuffle with Mitt's son, but pees his f***ing pants when it comes to criticizing something like al Qaeda.
No word on whether on whether this pu**y had a similar reaction when Michelle Obama said she "wanted to rip [Bill Clinton's] eyes out" after the former president said Boss Obama's position on the Iraq War was a "fairtytale."
Woody Harrelson, Martin Sheen, and Ed Asner are among those signed on to the project.
No word yet on whether trust funder Jason "Reasonable People Can Disagree About Whether or not George Bush Had Prior Knowledge of the 9/11 Attacks" Scott of the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers will help bankroll the film.
78 year-old leftist bus driver tells 12 year-old kid on her bus that “maybe your mom should have chosen abortion for you.” Why? His family has a Mitt Romney yard sign on their front lawn.
Remember how the Left and complicit media blamed conservatives for "inappropriate" (and that's being kind) terminology and symbolism for her shooting -- stuff like the term "target"??
How quickly we forget, huh?
Following up on the story of the idiot Philly teacher who compared a female student wearing a Mitt Romney campaign T-shirt to a KKK hood, it seems the parents of the girl met with the [idiot] teacher and the school principal about the incident. And it didn't go very well.
Richard Pawlucy said that during the meeting, the teacher insisted she had been joking, then stormed out and left the school. He said he was told he could file an official complaint with the district, which he said he planned to do Thursday. He said he was also given the option of letting the principal handle the incident, with the teacher getting some form of training.
When Samantha Pawlucy went back to her geometry class Tuesday, she said, she was shocked to find the teacher there. She claimed the teacher told the students she could no longer joke with them because a student had gotten her in trouble.
Verrrry classy there, teach. Not only do you not apologize for actions that were clearly over the line, but you up the ante -- twice. I mean, c'mon -- who "jokes" about the KKK?
Hopefully, this moron will get lectured by her fellow teachers about her idiocy. That is often good medicine.
He/She is only following the very standard established by "progressives" and the Boss Obama administration itself!
Philly Inquirer: Philly student's Romney T-shirt likened to KKK sheet.
Now here's the question though and the question that I ask you and it's not an easy one, I understand that. What, if anything, should happen to the people who made this video? I gotta tell you, I think they are as guilty, that's my opinion, I think they are as guilty as the terrorists who carried out those attacks against our embassy in Libya.
That's what you get when an MSNBC "pundit" talks with an intellectually challenged Democrat member of Congress. In this case, Thomas Roberts queries Sheila Jackson-Dunce, er, uh Lee if Voter ID laws are basically a poll tax:
“One issue impacting minority voters is voter ID – early voting restrictions,” Roberts began his question. “In your home state, a federal appeals court tossed out a voter ID law last week saying that it was an ‘unforgiving burden on the poor.’ Governor Rick Perry responded saying, ‘chalk up another victory for fraud.’ With 19 states now involved in this fight, why does the Republican Party – the party of smaller government and less taxes – want to institute more red tape and basically a poll tax on Americans to vote?”
Earth to Roberts: Poll taxes are unconstitutional, you complete cretin. As such,
[E]ach state that has imposed a strict requirement that voters must present photo identification at the polls has also made free identification available to voters that do not have them. Had those states not done so, the question of whether voter identification requirements constituted a poll tax would be valid.
But some loony "progressives" have even argued that using a stamp to register to vote (like I recently had to do because I had moved) is a freakin' "poll tax." Cripes, what's next -- using gas to drive to your polling place? Makes about as much sense as the cost of a f***ing stamp, after all!
The US Supreme Court has ruled favorably in voter ID cases, where the Texas case will end up and be heard next year. Meanwhile, Georgia and Indiana have had voter ID laws on the books since 2006, and Boss Obama won the latter in 2008 -- the first time a Democrat won that state since 1964. B-b-b-b-but how did he do that with that "voter suppression" ID law in place? Good question, as minority voter turnout increased after the Indiana ID was passed!
Go figure. Remember -- the usual racialist rhetoric about the poor and minorities when it comes to having an ID is merely the bigotry of low expectations. After all, you'll have to show ID several times this week at the Democrat National Convention, and there'll be plenty of minorities there, right?
I see my boy Duffy beat me to it today; great minds, and all that. Nevertheless, this insanity comes from admitted socialist and admitted coward (he noted he would never criticize Muslims out of physical fear, but Mormons, for example, are fair game) "Crazy" Larry O'Donnell of -- of course -- MSNBC. He amazingly said the following after a portion of GOP Senator Mitch McConnell's speech the other night at the GOP convention:
MARTIN BASHIR: We have seen an early draft of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s forthcoming oration. Can I quote something from you? “For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation’s problems, he hasn’t been working to earn re-election. He has been working to earn a spot on the PGA Tour.” How about that?
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Well, we know exactly what he’s trying to do there. He is trying to align to Tiger Woods and surely, the — lifestyle of Tiger Woods with Barack Obama. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. They find every way they possibly can to –
Now, you tell me -- here is what McConnell said in his speech that led to "Crazy" Larry's truly crazy remark:
For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation's problems. He hasn't been working to earn reelection. He's been working to earn a spot on the PGA tour.
Really? Really?? REALLY???
Just the other day I was involved in a slightly heated message exchange with our old friend Mike Matthews about "crazies" in the Republican Party, and conservatives in general. He hilariously stated "Where are the crazies in the Democrat Party? I don't see 'em." Yep, he said that. Such a statement rivals that of O'Donnell's absolutely gut-busting attempt to claim McConnell was linking Boss Obama to Tiger Woods' questionable (personal) lifestyle. There are thousands of pro golfers, whom one of the best happens to be black -- and that's what O'Donnell sees. It just couldn't be the fact that Boss Obama has played an insane amount of golf while the country suffers through the worst "recovery" in seventy years.
Credit, by the way, goes to fellow MSNBC talk host Martin Bashir for pressing O'Donnell on his asinine statement.
Ah yes, another Republican has made a dumb -- outrageously dumb -- comment, this time about rape. US Senate candidate from Missouri Todd Akin, who had a terrific opportunity to get the GOP a new Senate seat this fall, said that "in instances of what he called 'legitimate rape,' women’s bodies somehow blocked an unwanted pregnancy." Dumb? Yep. Stupid? Sure. Preposterously outrageous? Definitely.
Of course, the mainstream media predictably is having a field day with this. ABC notes that Akin's comments "may have repercussions for Mitt Romney." CNN points out that abortion is now at the center of the 2012 campaign debate, while its 9:00pm EDT host Piers Morgan notes that Mitt Romney has his "worst nightmare" with the controversy. MSNBC, to virtually no one's surprise, is using Akin's comments to tarnish the entire pro-life plank of the GOP. And, of course, Boss Obama chimed in (naturally), saying "rape is rape":
"Rape is rape, and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me."
Ah! Is that so, Mr. President? Would you parse words about abortion considering you favor legal abortion for sex selection? Would you parse words about infanticide considering you opposed a state law in Illinois that would protect the life of a newborn after a failed abortion?
And where was all the mainstream media attention given to these way-out-of-the-mainstream positions that Boss Obama held (holds)?? Absent, as per usual.
And while the GOP was almost universally vocal in condemning Akin's comments, the usual MSM idiots -- like Piers Morgan above, and Juan Williams on "O'Reilly" last evening -- perpetually strive to paint the statements of one moron as "representative" of all the Republican Party ... just like they always do when there's been [politically motivated] violence. When Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot by a lunatic, these media dolts immediately jumped on Sarah Palin's use of "target" lingo as "the cause" -- despite the fact that Democrats had been using the same terminology for years. Cretin Brian Ross virtually immediately tried to implicate the Tea Party with the Aurora, Colorado shooter despite there being ample evidence via Google to prove the T.P. was in no way involved.
On the other hand, when a volunteer at a local Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual center walked into the Family Research Council HQ in Washington, DC last week armed and then shot a security guard, well, let's just say the MSM took its sweet time even mentioning the story. And when they did finally "discover" what happened, coverage wasn't exactly in-depth. Oh, and did I mention that at least one prominent "progressive" talk show host said the shooting was the target's -- the Family Research Council's -- fault! Hey!! That sounds like someone telling a rape victim that she "asked for it" because she was dressed provocatively ... doesn't it?
*Sigh* It's the world we live in, after all. Conservatives/Republicans will never get a fair shake in the mainstream media merely because of who they are -- what they believe. And the old guard MSM will continue to (ridiculously) insist that they're fair when they're anything but, and that Fox News isn't a legitimate news organization ... ignoring against all evidence that that news outlet's meteoric rise is the ratings is precisely due to the MSM's preposterous bias, and that center and center-right individuals were craving a fair shake in news reporting -- reporting that Fox News gives them.
Lastly, maybe Fox can pick up this story about a Democratic Minnesota lawmaker who got caught a sex scandal with an under-aged boy. It can ask whether this will "put pressure on Barack Obama's campaign," and if this is Obama's "worst nightmare." But they won't. Fox does some silly stuff, yes, but they don't attempt to turn the actions of one individual into an indictment of a whole group. That's the MSM's and "progressives'" job.
UPDATE: Hey, has anyone heard of this Democratic US Senate candidate from Tennessee? Neither have I. That's probably because he's an anti-gay Democrat and the MSM can't be seen as reporting on something "so out of the ordinary," right?
9/11 Truther and co-host of his own MSNBC show Touré is at it again:
Yes, he said "ni**erization." He also offered this nonsense:
But they're (the Romney campaign) talking to people who are trained to hate him, who want to hate him. It's a base turnout election, so this is how we can rev up the base to, to work against him.
Um, if these people already "hate" Boss Obama, why the hell would Romney waste time speaking to them? He already has their vote!
(h/t to Shirley.)
Wow. Then, based on this standard, Boss Obama has caused almost sixty thousand deaths.
It took all of a minute. I’m corroborating it now. I’m telling you now. So I am calling on Barack Obama to release his Harvard transcripts, based this call. I got a call from a guy at Harvard who claimed that Obama’s got the lowest grades anybody who went there and didn’t even go to class sometimes, and the professor’s covered for him. It’s up to Obama to prove it. The allegation’s out there. It’s up to Obama to prove it. I got this call from Harvard, and the guy — he sounded smart — said he went to Harvard. He knew enough to call a phone number that would get to me. This guy found a way to get to me.
If this is truly the game they want to play, then the above is WAY in-bounds and fair. So c'mon, Mr. Obama -- prove you didn't have the worst grades in Harvard history!
Now it's a Philly city councilman and the NYC City Council Speaker. The former tweeted last night
Hey all you gay hating, gun toting conservative twits, I have to work tomorrow. So, as much as I just love talking to you, good night, GodBless.
Wow. Again, this -- even though roughly half the country believes as the president of Chick-fil-A -- that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Who's the "hater?"
What's the difference between so-called "progressives" and people who really believe in freedom of thought/expression/speech? The former believe they have the right to use government coercion to get their way -- and subsequently make you bow down to their will.
As noted earlier this week, Chick-fil-A came under fire because its owner is against gay "marriage." Several Democrat politicians -- like former Boss Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago -- believe that it is their job to enforce what they deem "American values" on the rest of us. Chicago alderman Proco Moreno said “Because of this man’s (Chick-fil-A owner Dan Cathy's) ignorance,” said Alderman Moreno, “I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the First Ward.”
Got that? Because Cathy is "ignorant" -- and doesn't agree with Moreno -- he'll be denied a permit to open up another store. Boston Mayor Tom Menino made similar threats.
Backtrack to the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero mosque. Two years ago I wrote
I happen to believe that Imam Rauf has the RIGHT to build his community center/mosque near Ground Zero. I also believe that people can protest his decision peacefully, in an attempt to persuade him otherwise.
I also expressed similar sentiments here.
I cannot think of any prominent conservative who advocated using government to thwart the imam and the mosque. (This isn't to say there weren't any, just that I do not recall them.) What they did was claim people peacefully protesting was a legitimate means to express their disagreement. And it was bad enough to witness to the media reaction to that. Just imagine if a few Republican mayors and other pols came out and said that "Muslims and their mosques weren't welcome in their communities." But hey -- come to think of it, religious Muslims have [much] stronger anti-gay beliefs than Cathy and most other Americans. Using logic (never a very strong "progressive" attribute), Emanuel and Menino should be even more outspoken against them. But to be so would cause all sorts of politically correct mental feedback and confusion. Or, is it fear? Remember, being outspoken against [American] Christians is safe. Being outspoken against religious Muslims can be dangerous. Don't believe me? Just ask admitted socialist and MSNBC pundit Lawrence O'Donnell.
You may have heard about this idiot state senator from Virginia who went off on Mitt Romney as simply appealing to racists everywhere in order to defeat Boss Obama:
The comments Friday by Democratic Sen. Louise Lucas during a local radio interview on behalf of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign have taken on a life of their own, particularly in conservative media.
On "The John Fredericks Show" on WHKT (1650 AM), Lucas said Romney is "speaking to a segment of the population who does not like to see people other than a white man in the White House or any other elected position."
Lucas was responding to a question from Fredericks about Romney's criticism of Obama for his lack of private-sector experience.
"Let's be real clear about it. Mitt Romney is speaking to a group of people out there who don't like folks like President Barack Obama in any elected or leadership position," Lucas said.
Lucas reiterated, "He's speaking to that fringe out there who do not want to see anybody other than a white person in a leadership position."
Now Ms. Lucas -- why would Mitt Romney even need to speak to such a fringe? If this segment of the population is so incorrigibly racist, doesn't it stand to reason that they'd never, ever vote for Barack Obama anyway? Romney already has their vote, then!
Incredibly (well, not really), Lucas "is a member of the Obama 'truth team' in Virginia, a roster of Democratic officials tasked with 'promoting the President's achievements, quickly responding to unfounded attacks on his record, and holding Republicans accountable for their actions.'"
Here's a definite bit of truth for 'ya: Ms. Lucas is a f***ing moron.
... yet another example of the ludicrous dumbing down of how "racism" works:
The Romney campaign has been accused of deliberately getting the Republican presidential candidate booed by black people during his NAACP speech to attract votes 'in certain racist precincts', by MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell.
Romney was booed for 15 seconds at the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People conference in Houston on Wednesday when he stated he would 'eliminate' unnecessary programmes like the Obamacare health reform.
Democrats united in saying that Romney planned to get booed to appeal to his conservative base. But O'Donnell and his guests went a step further by saying that Romney was making a play for white racists.
Hmm. So, according to admitted socialist O'Donnell, blacks can be so easily manipulated into expressing their displeasure merely at the utterance of a basic political campaign issue (ObamaCare, in this case). Just like, it seems, how blacks shouldn't be expected to possess savings accounts and/or find a way to work.
Always remember how "brave" Larry O'Donnell is, folks, when you consider what kind of "journalist/pundit" he is.
Here's what the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee said in reaction to the SCOTUS ruling on ObamaCare today: "it's constitutional. Bitches."
(Just don't criticize him too hard -- you'll be "racist.")
Justin Frank in Time magazine makes the "case" that it's OK to be bigoted against Mormons. Obviously, the target is Mitt Romney:
But this pattern of lying and not acknowledging it, even when confronted directly, has persisted and led me to look for other sources of Romney’s behavior and of his clear comfort with continuing it. I think much of this comfort stems from his Mormon faith.
I found myself discussing this situation with several colleagues, and we agreed that Romney doesn’t lie. Let me repeat: Mitt Romney doesn’t lie. He is telling the truth as he sees it — and truth it is, the facts notwithstanding. This is not simply a case of Hamlet arguing about point of view, saying, “For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” This is about a conflict between evidence and faith. There is a long tradition in the Mormon belief system in which evidence takes second place to faith.
Why does this seem like it could have been written in 1960 in reference to John F. Kennedy and his Catholicism? I thought we overcame such nonsense? Nevertheless, I wonder if Frank could have gotten this published had "Mormon" been replaced with "Jewish," "Muslim," or even a race/ethnicity like "black" or "Hispanic." Chee-yeah, right.
Also, on what would Frank blame Obama's penchant for lying? Sitting in the pews of Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years, perhaps? Why not?
Three a-hole gay activists give the Gipper the finger during a visit to the White House.
Activist Matty Hart "defended his gesture in the Philadelphia Magazine article. 'Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands,' he said. 'The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded.'"
Uh huh. And he was responsible for the "explosion?" Try again, you ridiculously PC nutjob. You and your radical extremists have no one to blame but yourselves for that, I'm afraid.
The popular new show "Game of Thrones" uses the decapitated head of ... George W. Bush on a spike. But it wasn't political, says the show's creators:
The last head on the left is George Bush. George Bush’s head appears in a couple of beheading scenes. It’s not a choice, it’s not a political statement. We just had to use whatever head we had around.
Yeah, right -- and the Khmer Rouge has won numerous awards for its commitment to human rights!
It's one thing to be an overtly liberal network; it's another thing to base your "journalism" on absolute garbage like this: Lawrence O'Donnell: Romney Has "Fetish" For Police Uniforms.
"And in tonight's episode of 'How Weird is Mitt Romney?' Mitt Romney has a thing for men in uniform. He has always wanted to be one," MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell said on the Wednesday night broadcast of his MSNBC show "The Last Word."
"Nope, not a military uniform.," O'Donnell rhetorically said.
"Mitt Romney's fetish is police uniforms," O'Donnell claimed. "This one is his favorite. The Michigan state trooper uniform. That's the Michigan state trooper uniform circa 1966. When Mitt Romney wasn't gay bashing kids whose hair he didn't like, Mitt Romney's other favorite sick thing to do was to impersonate a police officer."
"In an exclusive article just released tonight by the National Memo, details emerge of a Mitt Romney, who has a college freshman at Stanford University allegedly admitted to fellow dorm mates that he sometimes disguised himself as a police officer and laid out on his bed was a Michigan state trooper's uniform."
First of all, how does a supposed "serious" pundit show have a segment titled "How Weird is Mitt Romney"?
Second, admitted socialist O'Donnell is all giddy about this apparent "exclusive" -- a prank engaged in by Romney when he was 18 years old -- while getting in every possible gutter-hoarding dig on the GOP presidential candidate: He was a "gay-bashing" hair-cutting bully, supposedly is "creepy" for engaging in this teenage prank, and had a "fetish" for a uniform other than a military uniform because, of course, he had four deferments from service during the Vietnam era.
Be sure to watch the video at the first link.
If one is even remotely honest, none of the opposite-ideology Fox News pundits engage in such absolute drivel. Hell, Bill O'Reilly, if a conservative reporter had written this "exclusive," would have had the author on ... to rip him and make fun of him for concentrating on such hooey.
MSNBC's Al Sharpton claims the GOP used "'fraudulent tactics' to win yesterday's gubernatorial recall vote in Wisconsin."
Well, I suppose it's all they have left, right? Just make friggin' sh** up!!
As you'd expect, it's with a combination of profanity, classlessness, derision, and elitist snobbery. Let's take a sampling, shall we?
Jason "Trust Fund" Scott (the founder of the LGOMB):
As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy asses.”
The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a sex advice column called “Savage Love.”
Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.
“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” Tuttle told Fox news. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”
Tuttle said a number of his students were offended by Savage’s remarks – and some decided to leave the auditorium.
“It became hostile,” he said. “It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.”
Tuttle said the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.” At one point, he said Savage told the teenagers about how good his partner looked in a speedo.
Boy, what a class act. But the way the Left works, you can bet that Savage and his acolytes will try to turn this around and make those who were offended and/or left out to be the bullies -- because they dared to offend a homosexual.
Then we have a new video by MoveOn.org which attempts to make using the term "illegal immigrant" ... a hate crime. Suggested alternatives are the usual "undocumented worker," blah blah blah, but I think the best I heard was last night on a pundit show: "potential tax payer." The host was beside himself with unbelieving hilarity, asking the idiot who uttered this phrase something like, "What should we now call thieves and murderers? 'Potential law-abiding citizens??'"
This is the Age of Obama, where using actual, factual terminology is not only wrong, it may soon land you in jail.
View the "courageous" segment here.
Via the Daily Caller: College Democrats invite Louis Farrakhan to speak in Alabama.
Do I really have to explain just how ludicrous this is?? Perhaps I do, though, to Kris Taylor:
Kris Taylor, who leads the poetry club, predicted that there’s “going to be positive energy coming from this.” “I don’t believe he’s going to come here and bash the Jews,” Taylor said.
Farrakhan's history, however, proves otherwise, Ms. Taylor.
Now, envision the College Republicans inviting David Duke and someone like Taylor saying there's “going to be positive energy coming from this; I don’t believe he’s going to come here and bash blacks.”
Via the Newsbusters tip line (which goes out to many contributors, not just me). Extreme profanity (spelled out in the original e-mail) has been edited:
We will take you treasonous bastards down just like we will take down the treasonous bastards at Fox News. I myself want all the lying piece of shit mouth pieces for the corporate puppets known as the Republican party tried for treason, and if I get my way, conspirators of those treasonous fu**ing Republican bastards who have hijacked the taxpayers money into private pockets will be tried for treason as well!
The violations of our Constitution in the laws written by the Republican party will no longer be tolerated, and any further enforcement of such laws will also be counted as conspirators of treason, as every public official takes an oath to the Constitution and the people, not to the Republican party, and the corporations that buy them! You better know that if you treasonous bastards try and take out Obama, America will take you out immediately! IMMEDIATELY!
... here's yet another example of how the Left doesn't want a debate on anything -- they want to stifle debate by silencing the opposition, period:
From yesterday's edition of radio's syndicated Keeping It Real With Reverend Al Sharpton, the excerpt below is quite frankly unreal. Guest hosts Dominique Sharpton and Andre Eggelletion happily allowed a number of callers to demand opposition heads on a platter.
Known mostly for an ugly 2009 altercation, Dominique is the reverend's daughter. For his part, Eggelletion has been active in free speech suppression efforts in Southern California, working to remove KFI's top-rated John & Ken from Los Angeles airwaves. (Link)
Listen to the audio here.
There really is nothing more hysterically hilarious than to hear well known haters like Al "Resist We Much" Sharpton passing judgment on, and demanding restitution from, anybody, let alone having his very own show on a major cable network to do it.
Bruce Springsteen has never been more overtly political than over the last decade or so. Now, as PJ Lifestyle notes, he's gone "all in" with the Occupy movement -- so far as to explicitly promote violence against those nasty Wall Streeters:
Now Springsteen evidently feels his dream has been betrayed, and instead of blaming Obama, the “you” he sang to in 2008, he blames…Wall Street. The new album quickly proceeds to a series of savage denunciations and explicit calls for violence.
On the second track, which is called “Easy Money,” Springsteen sings:
There’s nothing to it mister, you won’t hear a sound
When your whole world comes tumbling down
And all them fat cats they just think it’s funny
I’m going on the town now looking for easy money
I got a Smith & Wesson .38
I got a hellfire burning and I got me a taste…
I don't know which is more hilarious -- the fact that Springsteen believes he's "one" with the working man ... considering he's never held a real job, or the fact that Springsteen believes he's "one" with the working man ... when he's a multi-millionaire several times over.
Just imagine if some conservative music star (most likely of the country genre) put out an album with similar lyrics and gun fire sound effects ... about our current administration. HOOOOO BOY!
So, not only is it acceptable for only leftist pundits to make vile comments about women (but not conservatives), it is also perfectly fine for leftists to refuse apologies -- if they from conservatives.
"Progressives" indeed. They're progressively more disgusting by the day.
UPDATE: All American Blogger has the perfect illustrated summary of this "progressive" hypocrisy.
The Tea Party is composed of violent-minded extremists, but the Occupy Wall Streeters are made Time's Person of the Year.
Right-winger "extremist rhetoric" is responsible for the dissolution of civil discourse and for incidents like the Gabby Giffords shooting, but far-leftist rhetoric -- arguably a lot worse -- is permissible because it's "based in reality" and because conservatives "deserve it."
And now the latest (predictably): the "progressive-sphere," local and national, is showing their hypocritical idiocy once again by foaming at the mouth at Rush Limbaugh's recent inappropriate comments to a college law student, yet have -- and had -- absolutely nothing at all to comment on when people like Bill Maher and Ed Schultz belittled women arguably more than Rush. Member of the LGOMB Pandora whines about the GOP's treatment of women (surprise). Our old friend Perry (aka Wagonwheel) has been practically rabid in demanding each and every conservative denounce Limbaugh.
You "progressives" really care about women? Really? Prove it. But so far all you've done is show you're silly, pathetic, partisan political hacks.
So I reiterate: So until you reconcile all this, "progressives," simply STFU about Limbaugh's comments.
UPDATE: Though I'm not that big a fan, Newt Gingrich shreds NBC's David Gregory on this whole silly matter:
"You know, David, I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the President's apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the Great Depression, and to suddenly decide that Rush Limbaugh is the great national crisis of this week."
They avoid it because they're on Obama's team, after all.
Tell 'ya what, "progressives": You start blasting your own when it comes to outrageous and hateful statements towards those on the right, then maybe I'll give a sh**. But you don't and won't, so I won't.
Ever listen to HBO's Bill Maher, who just donated $1 million to President Obama's campaign? He regularly says things 100 times more vile than Limbaugh. I wonder if Obama will call those whom Maher's trashed (like Sarah Palin) to offer support, like he did the subject of Limbaugh's rant.
There's a lot more here. So until you reconcile all those, "progressives," simply STFU about Limbaugh's comments.
Story here. Let the "progressive civility" (you remember, right -- the "progressive" demands for more civility in our discourse?) begin. Comments from the ABCNews.com story:
Praise the Lord, the King of Lies is dead.
Probably died of drug overdose or autoerotic asphixiation.
Apparently he was truly a sick man, not only his thoughts and actions but his physical health as well.
UPDATE: Commenter Dan in the comments points out that Breitbart thoroughly trashed Ted Kennedy after he passed away. The tweets weren't pretty. In fact, they were pretty damn vile. Given that, Breitbart doesn't deserve any special consideration in the manners dept. Nevertheless, my point about "civility" still stands. If the Left is the first and most vociferous about a "new civility" in our discourse, I'm still waiting for them to practice it.
Tom Blumer over at Newsbusters reports on the conclusion by a couple of ... "ethicists" in Australia about whether
"... we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human." Their answer is "Yes, they should."
As shocking as this may seem, what's even more shocking, according to Julian Savulescu of the Practical Ethics blog and editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics in which the above proposition was published, are the examples of "hate speech" that have been directed at the Journal as a result. Got that? People voicing displeasure at the concept of infanticide are worse than those who would perpetrate said infanticide.
Now, as Blumer mentions in his Newsbusters post, some of the correspondence sent to the Journal involved threats. These, of course, are totally unacceptable. But Savulescu is also miffed at comments such as the following:
“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”
“I don‘t believe I’ve ever heard anything as vile as what these “people” are advocating. Truly, truly scary.”
“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”
“Liberals are disgusting. They have criminal minds. To think that a person must be considered “worthy” to live is criminal.”
“i can’t even comment on this atrocity. I know these people are murderers in their hearts. And God will treat them as such. They are completely spiritually dead.”
Savulescu concludes: "This is hate speech. The kind of thing that incenses people to violence."
Is that so? And pondering -- advocating -- putting infanticide on the same level as abortion doesn't do just that? How freakin' far have we fallen as a society when infanticide can be advocated because a child "might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole," but CRITICISM of such that action could lead people to violent actions.
Such simply defies the most basic morality.
And this is the world the contemporary Left would have us live in: Where supposed hate speech is akin to infanticide; where infanticide is pondered to allow for more personal and societal comfort, yet the death penalty for brutal killers is anathema; where peaceful protests against massive, intrusive government (Tea Parties) are demonized, but violent protests where people die, are raped, do drugs, and attack police are lionized; where one side's presidential candidates are vilified for supposedly wanting to outlaw contraception, but our current president -- who voted for a state law that allowed the infanticide of babies that survived an abortion -- is adored by women everywhere.
I'm reminded of the exchange between Sol and the head of the Book Exchange in Soylent Green. After Sol reads the classified report that reveals the Soylent Corporation is making food out of people, he exclaims "Good God!" Whereupon the head of the Exchange says, "What God, Mr. Roth? Where will we find him?"
Be sure to read the Daily Caller's exposé on Media Matters ... and its coordination with the White House.
GLADD is upset at CNN [very liberal] anchor Roland Martin because of a perceived anti-gay slur:
GLAAD wants CNN to fire Roland Martin after a series of tweets about David Beckham that they consider homophobic.
Martin commented on David Beckham's H&M ads during the Super Bowl.
He tweeted: "Ain't no real bruhs going to H&M to buy some damn David Beckham underwear!...If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham's H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him!...I bet soccer fan Piers Morgan will be in line at H&M in the morning to get his hands on David Bechman's (sic) underwear line!"
He was accused of being homophobic by those on Twitter, and GLAAD commented: "Advocates of gay bashing have no place at CNN."
Look, I think Martin is a first-class douche, but demanding that he be fired from the network for the above tweet?? Liberal Fascism, anyone? Still, it's always amusing when left meets left in battle of politically correct self-righteousness. Martin, after all, could scream "racism" if he gets too much heat from GLADD.
M-BS-NBC's Chris Matthews, who's dubbed just about ANY utterance contrary to the beliefs of President Obama as "racist," had this to say about religious Americans today: "What is with the troglodytes? The Luddites? What is the party that used to believe in things?"
Video at the link, too.
... and continues the outright lies:
“We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords, who is doing really well by the way, and I know everybody is so thrilled, as I am, to hear that, making tremendous progress,” said Wasserman Schultz, according to C-SPAN.
“But the discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular, to answer your question, very specifically, has really changed. And I’ll tell you, I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it takes a very precipitous turn towards edginess and a lack of civility with the growth of the tea party movement,” she immediately added.
Oh, right -- "hesitate to place blame." Does this absolute cretin exist in this reality? Did she just happen to miss the vitriol endured by George W. Bush the decade prior? Did she just happen to miss all the invective spewed by her ideological brethren in the media -- and the Occupy [Bowel] Movement?
I tell 'ya, if I was Mitt Romney (the likely GOP nominee), I wouldn't spare the rhetorical rod for anything this campaign. Wasserman-Idiot's ridiculous comments are just the beginning of the faux progressive push. In commercials I'd feature Obama alongside the Occupiers every chance I'd get, alongside Reverend Jeremiah Wright, alongside his moron attorney general, Eric Holder, showing our own guns cutting down innocents, alongside the New Black Panthers who're intimidating voters at a polling place, and alongside corpses and illegal aliens who're attempting to vote.
And every time the MSM complained about it (to me), I'd tell 'em "Too harsh and insensitive? Really? Have you complained to the other side about their rhetoric? Of course you haven't. So, next question."
You pick up a superhero comic book featuring a childhood favorite of yours, hoping to reignite some of that magic you felt way back when and you see that the opening sequence in the comic deals with an oil rig disaster. You immediately and disappointingly know what’s going to be said, either by your childhood favorite or by some other character given credibility within the story. You turn the page, and sure enough, your childhood favorite grumbles about his/her country’s dependency on oil or how inherently dangerous oil drilling is to the environment and how it’s not worth it or simply mutters to him-or-herself briefly about the evils of corporate America. That’s when you put the comic back on the shelf and your local retailer loses a sale. (Sound familiar? Brightest Day #5 contained a similar scenario featuring Aquaman.)
Alas, I know this all too well. As a big comicbook geek from waaaaay back (I obviously have a section of Colossus dedicated to comics), and as one who continued to purchase comics up until the mid-2000s, I find this modern "progressive" trend not only disburbing, but disgusting. It's what led me to stop purchasing contemporary comics outright, and lose some, if not friendships, associations, as a result.
Much of Colossus' comics section deals with the ridiculous liberalism that has crept into comics over the last decade or so. The very first post in this category dealt mainly with a group called The Authority, whose members' actions supposedly on behalf of the "greater good" were a progressives wet dream come true. They at one point took over the United States government and proceeded to make demands that your typical environmentalist, climate Chicken Little, and socialist would begin crying in delight over. Modern hot shot writer Mark Millar (ever see the movie Kick Ass? That's his) is an avowed leftist from way back. Many of his works are imbued with progressive drivel throughout, such as in his Superman: Red Son (which reimagines the Man of Steel as a Soviet superhero), in Marvel's The Ultimates and the cross-over event "Civil War." In the former, Millar had Londonders cheering on the Soviet Superman as he battled his American counterpart as sort of an analogy to American "interference" in European affairs during the Cold War. In The Ultimates (which, by the way, the upcoming The Avengers movie is mostly based on), Millar had a superhero team composed of characters from countries like North Korea and the Muslim Middle East invade the United States so as to "restrain the Roman Empire" because they "feared what America might do next." Another rationale was because America was "interfering with cultures they could never understand." Lastly, in "Civil War," Marvel's superheroes split along ideological lines: One side favored registering superhuman powers with the government; the other side fought against such. The former was led by Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, and the latter by Captain America. Millar's scripts were heavily tilted in favor of Captain America's team; he ridiculously had Iron Man's team utilizing some of the worst Marvel villains in its history working on its behalf, and even made use of an other-dimensional prison where dissenters were locked up without trial.
Darin mentions the recent choice by Superman to renounce his American citizenship, and how [supposedly] conservative-leaning heroes are either borderline psychos or outright mental defectives as more up-to-date examples. He also brings up a good point that many individual instances of lefty "jabs" in comics aren't all that big a deal; however, the cumulative effect begins to piss people off if they do not share the politics of the writers. Like Captain America of the future informing his counterpart of the past how awful his country has become since WW II. Like Captain America infiltrating the Tea Party. Like writer/artist Erik Larsen stating outright that George W. Bush was "worse than Nixon," and stole not one, but two elections. Like Larsen having his most popular creation, the Savage Dragon, punching G.W. Bush in the face. Like popular writer Warren Ellis creating a superhero who takes it upon himself to kill the president (Bush, of course) for, among other things, his "illegal" war in Iraq. Where popular X-Men writer Chris Claremont laments the Reagan era in his story "God Loves, Man Kills" wherein religious fundamentalists go around murdering mutants.
Are you getting that cumulative effect yet? Because this is only the tip of the iceberg, my friends. And what's more, all the above and more are widely accepted without so much as a peep (the only exception being conservative blogs), whereas when the few instances of right-of-center stories are in development, they're "controversial" and contain all the progressive "-isms." The writer of the novel First Blood (think: Rambo) writing Captain America? Oh, NO!! Frank Miller planning a Batman story where he battles al Qaeda? We're squeamish.
This cumulative effect eventually took its toll on me. I kept purchasing comics probably longer than I should have. Many of the stories were top notch despite my knowing the politics of the creators -- the aforementioned Superman: Red Son, The Ultimates, and original The Authority series are examples -- but at a certain point, I had had enough. (I think it may have been after collecting a few issues of the series Supreme Power, which I wrote about at the Four Color Media Monitor here.) I just asked myself "Why do I continue to support these guys? I give them my money -- and they continually spit in my face."
Some otherwise reasonable creators don't seem to get this concept. Last year I "unfriended" popular comics writer Kurt Busiek on Facebook shortly after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. Kurt's best known for his Astro City original series, as well as his memorable run on The Avengers. But Kurt is pretty outspoken on his Facebook page -- which is certainly OK, but when you're in the field he is, it just might not be a very good idea. As I wrote in the comments at Four Color Media Monitor,
I've absolutely NO hassle with anyone pontificating on matters political, whatever your field of endeavor. However, if you're in Kurt's field, it is ridiculous to expect NO criticism in response to your outspokenness. In regards to the Giffords shooting, Kurt immediately took the Reflexive Left's penchant for invoking conservative "hate" rhetoric as a "cause" for a killer's/terrorist's actions. Yes, he did say "we need to wait and see," but then again, Kurt did not exactly wait, did he? Moreover, by exclusively focusing on Palin, the Right, and moronic a-holes like that hateful comics vendor, Busiek effectively alienates approximately half of his fan base. And then people complain when those alienated point to his comments?
Busiek apparently didn't like that I made screen caps (see at above) of some of his comments and sent them to FCMM's Avi Green, who then wrote about it. (He Tweeted about it and his minions rushed over to FCMM in his defense.) That's too bad. Years before this little incident, I had had an e-mail exchange with Kurt (I was writing and editing an Iron Man fanzine at the time) where we discussed (mainly) economic boycotts when entertainers (or writers/artists like Kurt) make controversial statements or do something controversial. Kurt was dead-set against such boycotts, stating that he felt it best to "discuss" the issue in various forums. Of course, with that, the power resides with the entertainer since they have much more access (based on their popularity) to social media and such. The only real thing that the average joe can do to "inform" entertainers that they're dissatisfied is to utilize their pocketbook -- or, more accurately, not utilize it.
It's the 'ol "Shut up and sing!" mantra. If you're in the entertainment business, you run the risk of alienating a certain portion of your fanbase if you insist upon making controversial statements or taking up controversial positions on issues. This is no way means you have to shut up; however, you need to be aware that freedom of speech does NOT mean there's freedom from criticism -- or freedom from consequences.
And, thus, all this is [partly] why I blog. I why I'll continue to not shell out $3-4 for a comicbook any time soon.
"The Left’s much-vaunted powers of empathy routinely fail when confronted by those who do not agree with them politically." -- Mark Steyn
Because, y'know, they're all patriotic and stuff:
[Alex] Tyler said late Friday that he regrets any trouble the flag-burning protest may have brought to the movement, the newspaper reported, but he stands by the protest.
"I've seen this group lose its activism and become lazy," Tyler said, adding that he and the other men wanted to "give Occupy Charlotte a wake-up call."
Of course, flag burning is not illegal; that doesn't mean, however, that we can't refer to Tyler and his pals as big douches.
Several of the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers (LGOMB) managed to get News Journal columnist Chad "I Don't Proofread My Posts" Livengood (since corrected -- he must've see my comment) to give them some time to cry and whine about local Democrats "giving in" to the GOP. Take a gander at what has these moonbats' panties all in a bunch, in an article titled "Some in Left Wing Feel Slighted":
U.S. Sen. Tom Carper believes there's billions in wasteful spending contributing to the $1.3 trillion federal deficit this year.
His fellow Delaware Democrat, U.S. Rep. John Carney, wants a constitutional amendment requiring the federal government's operating budget to be balanced every year, with some emergency exceptions.
And U.S. Sen. Chris Coons has said Democrats must be willing to compromise with Republicans on cutting long-term costs in entitlement programs to save Medicare and Social Security from insolvency.
Oh HEAVENS!! Carper thinks there's billions in wasteful spending! Carney believes the federal government should be required to balance its books! Coons thinks we ought to seriously address the entitlement issue! I FEEL SLIGHTED!!! These moonbats
... contend that introducing balanced-budget amendments and holding headline-grabbing hearings scrutinizing insignificant spending only emboldens Republicans who insist government is what ails the nation.
And why's that? Because it IS government which ails the nation, you idiots!! Whose fault is it that we're $15 trillion in debt? Whose fault is it that we have a few trillion in budget deficit? Whose fault is it that the housing/mortgage and banking industries collapsed? There's not a single thing that cannot be traced back to GOVERNMENT (specifically, the federal government) when it comes to the nation's current ills.
Any poll consistently shows that the American public knows the above. The LGOMB would, instead of attempting to demonize these sensible views by our local Democratic leaders, be better advised to concentrate on those aspects of their party's positions also viewed favorably by said public -- like a modest increase in various taxes/rates for higher income folks. But, then again, these are the same idiots who believe all Republicans should be rounded up and shot, not to mention that "reasonable people can disagree" about whether George W. Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.
Jimmy Fallon's bandleader has been the target of some very nasty Tweets since he and his co-horts played "Lyin' Ass Bitch" when Michelle Bachmann was introduced as a guest:
I've seen some really colorful epithets in the past four days, but "ni**er fuckhead ghetto stick" (spelled out in the original) is probably the one that takes the cake. I'm still trying to get my head around that one. Blocking 3,500 tea party extremists [on Twitter] in a three day period is no fun, especially when you're a drummer dangerously close to carpal tunnel. In the end, was it worth it? Absolutely not.
I'd never condone using the "N" word no matter how miffed one may get, but what the hell does this guy expect when he pulls a stunt like he did? And how the hell does he know they're Tea Partiers? He doesn't -- it's yet another cheap shot at Bachmann and her supporters.
This putz has about as much class as a razed school building -- especially since it was Bachmann who very probably saved his very job!!
... he'd finally get the Left miffed at his shenanigans. Y'know, like Jared Loughner in Arizona, even though there was no evidence he was influenced by the Sarah Palin political ads. As it is, an Occupy Carolina protester writes on South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley's Facebook page the following:
I hope someone murders you before I do. How’s that for freedom of speech?
Video of the jackass being arrested at the link above.
Don't hold your breath.
Occupy Milwaukee openly commits vote fraud -- and offers minors cigarettes at the same time!
Oh, and look! OWSers are ... Truthers! Who'da guessed??
Elsewhere, OWSers openly call for killing cops if they're about to be arrested.
Just another day in Occupyville.
Imagine if this was related to the T.P. and Second Amendment rights:
One significant and somewhat surprising finding was that Occupy Wall Street supporters believe violence is sometimes necessary against the government, said Phil Hardy, a Benedictine assistant professor of Political Science and one of the survey organizers.
Though the Occupy Wall Street movement has been largely peaceful, 58 percent of Occupy Chicago survey respondents agreed that violence against the government is sometimes justified.
Well well. Imagine that. Oh, and this is surprising to whom, exactly? As John Nolte notes, "Only to those without access to television and the Internet. Only to those in the MSM with an agenda who dare define this mob as 'largely peaceful.'”
Delaware Douche today over the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers:
Federal law enforcement authorities yesterday arrested a 21-year-old Idaho man suspected of shooting with a semiautomatic rifle at the White House on Friday night, as the Secret Service reported finding that at least one bullet had indeed struck the presidential residence.
In response to this, on Twitter, the president of the College Republicans at the University of Texas, Lauren Pierce, had this to say: “Y’all as tempting as it may be, don’t shoot Obama. We need him to go down in history as the WORST president we’ve EVER had! #2012.”
DD titled this post "Just Evil."
Flashback to September 2008:
Let’s be clear, without this massive bailout, the economic system of the United States would collapse into a depression worse than the Great Depression. The system would “meltdown.” The Dollar would be worth nothing. Senator Christopher Dodd said that is what lawmakers were told last night.
You fucking Republicans are all to blame. Your advocacy of deregulation for the last 30 years is responsible. The greed that underlies your policies and that invades your supporters was your motivation. You put yourselves and your wallets first, and our country last. You should all be round up and shot. Seriously.
The person who wrote that was ... none other than Delaware Douche. Now, much later on DD apologized for it (after getting endless heat, notably by yours truly), saying it was "out of anger." I guess that's supposed to make it OK, right? But that's not good enough for Ms. Pierce, though! Douche writes of her excuse: "Of course, after she called lambasted on the Internets for her evilness, the coward Pierce says it was a joke, as if joking about something is a get out of jail free card in the conservative mind."
You just can't make stuff like this up, folks. The standards that these pathetic mental pygmies apply to everyone else never apply to them. And then they have the cojones to sit in moral judgment on everyone else. Their constant blasting of the Tea Party is yet another example; as we've shown, they spared no expense in attempting to portray that group as a wacky, dangerous and violent group -- despite the evidence. But when we all witness a real wacky, dangerous and violent group -- the Occupy movement -- what do these dolts do? Adhere a banner to the corner of their site stating they support this movement!
More Americans now view Tea Party more favorably than Occupy Wall Street.
Well, what do you expect when you see all this day after day after day?
In other news, if this dude was a right-wing Tea Partier, how soon would it be for the moronic LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers), among others, to get posts up blaming right-wing "hate speech," Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, GOP "target" ads, and elephant underwear for his actions? Any possible connection to the GOP and conservatives would be spared nothing ... yet this dude is suspected of being a resident of Occupy Washington DC. Let's see how this connection is played.
This is what a complete douche (the article's author) looks like, FWIW.
You can be sure the MSM will skip this:
"All those fat rich white people, you love protecting them, I'm sure." Nice, eh?
Let's see if THE NARRARIVETM is true to reality:
Three people arrested Thursday night inside the Occupy Boston camp have been charged with dealing crack cocaine ... "Things have changed drastically. It seems to be deteriorating,” the man told Carl. “A lot of drug use, alcohol use, people getting into fights… It’s deteriorating pretty quick.”
In Los Angeles, OWSers shut down a Burger King in "protest":
Lauren Gill, an organizer at the camp, said the woman apparently died of a drug overdose. She said the death highlights the need for more addiction services because drugs are such a big issue in the city.
Three people were arrested Saturday as part of the ongoing Occupy Phoenix protest. Sgt. Trent Crump, a spokesman for the Phoenix Police Department, said two people were arrested at Cesar Chavez Plaza in downtown Phoenix for breaking urban camping laws. One person was arrested on a felony warrant.
Here in Delaware, protesters are in danger of following in Phoenix's footsteps:
Occupy Delaware protesters, who are railing against perceived economic inequality and corporate control of government, thumbed their noses at Gov. Jack Markell again Sunday, rejecting a state permit to camp out in Wilmington's Brandywine Park.
But the protesters' decision to migrate to Peter Spencer Plaza, next to the Boggs Federal Building, could lead to a confrontation with Wilmington police this morning.
As you've no doubt surmised by now, my main objection to OWS is the preposterous media double standard with regards to it and its coverage of the Tea Party. Not to mention, the preposterous double standard by OWS-supporting "progressives" themselves. For example,
And on and on it goes. In other words, do not listen to one word of protest from a so-called "progressive" about the coverage/treatment of the OWSers ... until you've established that he/she wasn't ridiculously critical of the Tea Party and its motives/actions.
Tell me what these losers want, again?
In Washington DC:
Notice how the all-white crowd prevents a black man from getting his two year-old daughter safely home? Racists!
Moonbat pandora of the LGOMB exemplifies perfectly the duplicitous insanity that her fellow moonbats -- and the mainstream media -- exhibit when "examining" Tea Partiers and OWSers. She writes:
A Tea Party supporter calls Elizabeth Warren a “Socialist whore.”
Speaking in a packed VFW hall, Warren went on to address his question about her association with Occupy Wall Street. “I’ve been protesting what’s been going on on Wall Street for a very long time,” she said, but added that the movement has its own independent agenda and will proceed along its own course.
“Yeah, so has the Tea Party,” the man said, before losing his cool.
“Well, if you’re the intellectual creator of that so-called party,” he said, “you’re a socialist whore. I don’t want anything to do with you.” The crowd shouted him down as he added that Warren’s “boss,” presumably referring to the president, was “foreign-born.” He then attempted to storm out through a side door. Finding it locked, he retreated out the back of the VFW hall instead.
Warren afterwards said she "felt sorry" for the man and wasn't angry with him. Leaving pandora to conclude: "Let’s recap: Elizabeth Warren = Classy. Tea Party Supporter = Misogynistic, birther nutcase. In other words… the GOP base."
Is that so, pandora? If a single moronic Tea Party individual "represents" the GOP base, who do these people then represent?
So let's recap: Single Tea Party dolt = an individual cretin.
The Occupy Movement = Violent, destructive, profane, law-breaking. In other words ... the Democratic base.
Hey, I'm just using moonbattish pandorian "logic." Don't blame me.
Conservative pundit Ann Coulter has taken heat for her comments about Herman Cain's situation ("Our blacks are better than their blacks"). This isn't surprising, of course. Any inkling of racial "insensitivity" on the part of conservatives/the GOP is immediately pounced on with the predictable race card. Now, Coulter is far from my favorite person, and I think her comments were intemperate; however, let's take a gander (again) at the moronic no-last name Touré who was recently at it again over at MSNBC:
TOURE, TIME CONTRIBUTOR: But this is a major moment for the GOP because Cain is a really important candidate - perhaps more important than any of the other candidates - because he serves a massive psychological purpose because there's a lot of people in the GOP who have been critical of Obama and have been made to feel that they are racist because of their criticism. Some of it has been racist, some of it's been reasonable, some of it's been business-as-usual Republican-Democrat stuff, okay.
Cain comes along offering salvation, liberation: You're not racist if you support Herman Cain. So now they have this Herman Cain card that they can throw at us anytime they are made to feel racist, so this is like a beautiful thing for them. So they need him to succeed as long as they can deal with him so that they can get their Cain card and make it as valuable as possible. But, of course, this whole transaction is a canard.
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: In what way?
TOURE: Well, I mean, Cain is giving comfort to racism the way that he purports himself, as we've discussed before on this show, so, I mean, this is not the person that you can hold up as, well, see, I'm not a racist, I love Herman Cain.
Like Coulter, Cain himself took a lot of heat for saying that too many blacks are "brainwashed" for their lock-step loyalty to the Democrat Party. Yet this buffoon Touré holds himself up as a spokesman for not only all blacks, but all American voters by lecturing us that Cain is not "the right kind" of black to hold in high regard. And why? Because he dares to venture away from that which he referenced in his "brainwashing" comment. He dares to think differently and hold a different political point of view. And for racers like Touré, this is totally and completely anathema -- and is much like "progressive" dogma in general. That is, if you dare go astray, you must be destroyed. Period.
So, Touré is different from Coulter and Cain ... how?
Police in riot gear clashed with protesters in Oakland in the early morning hours on Thursday, firing tear gas to disperse demonstrators lingering in the streets after a day of mostly peaceful rallies against economic inequality and police brutality.
The clash and standoff came only hours after protesters shut down the Port of Oakland late Wednesday.
The confrontation, which erupted after midnight, appeared aimed at preventing the protesters from expanding their foothold in the streets around a public plaza that has become a hub for demonstrations in the northern California city.
Hmm, that doesn't sound too bad ... but that is from MSNBC, so consider the wording: "mostly peaceful rallies ..." "Against economic inequality and police brutality." So, let's take another gander:
The confrontation began after protesters started a large bonfire in the middle of a downtown street. Dozens of police in riot gear moved in on hundreds of protesters as the flames leapt more than 15 feet in the air from several large metal and plastic trash bins that had been pushed together.
Although windows at two bank branches and a Whole Foods store were broken and graffiti was painted inside one of the banks, officials described the protests as peaceful and orderly and said no arrests had been made.
Hmm, OK, that was the AP. It totally downplays the violence against these businesses with the clarifier "although." So, let's try elsewhere:
A roving group of about 100 mostly young men broke from the main group of protesters in a central plaza and roamed through downtown streets spraying graffiti, burning garbage and breaking windows. The police said some in the group briefly occupied a building on 16th Street near the port.
Some of the protesters blocked entrances to branches of Chase and Wells Fargo banks shouting: “Banks got bailed out. We got sold out.”
That was the NY Times! Who'da thought?
The point being: If these people were Tea Partiers, would these MSM outlets take such pains to point out the "mostly peaceful" aspects of their rallies? And would the LGOMB be so proud as to hang a banner in support of them?
Just so you know.
Meanwhile, in a big flip, the American public is getting fed up with the OWSers:
A new poll from Quinnipiac University finds that more Americans view the Occupy Wall Street protests unfavorably than positively.
Just 30 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the protests, while 39 percent do not. Among independent voters, the spread is 29-42 against — a warning sign for Democrats who are trying to bring the movement into the mainstream.
Last month, a CNN poll found that 32 percent of Americans supported the movement, while 29 percent viewed it unfavorably.
It was easy to sympathize with the complaints of the OWSers, especially at the onset (big corporations getting bailed out, their execs getting insane bonuses, etc.); however, as I knew was inevitable, the more radical elements of the protesters couldn't contain themselves and have resorted to vandalism and violence.
Zombie's done it again -- this time with a comprehensive list of some of more shady outfits that have demonstrated their support of Occupy Wall Street. Be sure to click the link above if you doubt any of these, as Zombie has 'em all sourced.
Now, you may be asking: "But Hube, isn't this sorta like guilt by association?" Well, let's see:
And what about this? Here, as demonstrated by local blogging harpy Nancy Willing (see the comments), the local KKK once had said they agreed with a piece of legislation (apparently anti-affirmative action) sponsored by former state representative (and eventual House Majority Leader) Wayne Smith. And what did our local Wilmington News Journal have to say about it? "Any bill favored by the KKK is bound to be racist" (April 29, 1996, p. 10A). And local moonbat columnist Ralph Moyed chimed in with “Shed no tears for legislator endorsed by Klan” (April 28, 1996, p. 2H). See also here at Colossus for more background.
So consider that lengthy list above again and consider where our illustrious mainstream media has been with such similar "kindred spirit" sentiments. Yep, that's right -- haven't been any, have there? Again, the Communist Party USA. American Nazi Party. North Korea. David Duke. The Black Panthers.
All you can do is just shake your head ...
UPDATE: Carelessly, I forgot to point out what the LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) has at the upper left-hand corner of their main page at present (see above left). Therefore, can we conclude that they are sympathetic to all of those above??
Via Sharp Elbows: Howard Stern does what the MSM won't do regarding the Occupy movement (language warning):
The racists at MSNBC are at it again:
Very seriously, and this is a little harsh, but one of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel OK, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he is giving that base a free pass and I think they like him because they think he is a black man that knows his place. And I know that's harsh, but that's how it sure seems to me.
MSNBC = Must Smear that Nasty Black Cain.
Why is MSNBC so racist? Why does it hate black people? The latest from them is host Martin Bashir calling GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain a "chicken hawk" for his views on Iran ... despite Cain having worked for the Navy Department.
MSNBC = Must Smear that Naughty Black Cain.
They're at it again. Why does the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers (LGOMB) hate black people so much?
Anne Foley, the principal at Kennedy School in Somerville, Mass., sent an email to teachers warning them about celebrating Thanksgiving, the Boston Herald reported.
"When we were young we might have been able to claim ignorance of the atrocities that Christopher Columbus committed against the indigenous peoples," Kennedy School Principal Anne Foley wrote.
"We can no longer do so. For many of us and our students celebrating this particular person is an insult and a slight to the people he annihilated. On the same lines, we need to be careful around the Thanksgiving Day time as well."
She must have gotten that straight from some ed school course probably titled something like "Multiculturalism for New Teachers." But that ain't it. The laughable CYA moment comes from the district superintendent:
School Superintendent Tony Pierantozzi also issued a statement yesterday in response to the holiday flap saying Foley’s email was intended to “spark healthy faculty discussion” about Christopher Columbus and that the schools celebrate holidays “when related to the curriculum.”
Uh huh. And if that "healthy faculty discussion" included teachers telling their principal that she is being outrageously ridiculous? Yeah, I bet that'd go over really well, especially come evaluation time. Thanksgiving is a national holiday for goodness sake, and besides -- what does Columbus really have to do with Thanksgiving? He landed in the New World over a century before the Pilgrims landed further north. The idea that the Europeans were brutal, genocidal ogres and the Natives were idyllic, peace-loving utopians is laughable in the extreme. After all, for example, why didn't Foley mention the cannibalism that some of the Natives who Columbus encountered practiced? Easy: Doesn't fit THE NARRATIVETM.
This presidential election has not lacked for clowns, and in a circus Herman Cain fits right in. But as the Black clown, Cain's foot-in-mouth moments mostly involve insulting the Black community.
If this was a conservative saying this about Barack Obama, the MSM would be seeking to ostracize this individual forever from the scene for his "racism." But, alas, the last nameless Touré holds the "correct" views on race and race relations -- correct for for MSNBC, CNN, ABC, the New York Times, etc. For instance, he says,
Also, Big Daddy Cain recently said racism no longer "holds anyone back in a big way," which is a disgusting and dangerous statement because it gives leverage to those who want desperately to believe that lie. Racism is like the weather: we only talk about its extremes, but it’s always there. America has institutional inequities built into its structures that guarantee that millions of Blacks have no chance at success. Those systems operate powered by white privilege, which works automatically, no need to apply or activate it. And much of modern racism is subtle and hidden; there are fewer smoking guns now than ever.
Or, on the other hand, as common sensical people would put it, when there's not much left to complain about, make it "subtle" and "hidden" -- that way we don't actually have to show or prove anything.
Just keep in mind that this is the lunatic who once asked
Bryant Gumbel says that NBA commissioner David Stern is like a "plantation overseer."
Stern's version of what has been going on behind closed doors has of course been disputed, but his efforts were typical of a commissioner who has always seemed eager to be viewed as some kind of modern plantation overseer, treating NBA men as if they were his boys. It's part of Stern's M.O., like his past self-serving edicts on dress code and the questioning of officials. His moves were intended to do little more than show how he's the one keeping the hired hands in their place.
If he's really a modern-day slave master, then why does "Ole Massa pay players an AVERAGE of $4.75 million or $92,199 per week," as Larry Elder notes?
I must be magnitudes less than a "slave," then. Sheesh.
... especially when it was remotely connected to Tea Partiers? Alas, those days are over.
Unfunny comedian Bill Maher said yesterday that "If a brick came through Rupert Murdoch’s apartment, yes, I have a feeling Fox News would be a lot more gentle on the Wall Street people." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, on whose show Maher found himself, laughed.
And hell, here's the call in straight black and white:
If this dude was a Tea Partier, he'd be a regular feature on MSNBC, CNN, CBS and ABC for a solid week!
Remember how "choked up" Nancy Pelosi got at the [imaginary] prospect of Tea Party violence? She's suddenly ultra-cool with those OWSers. Who'da thunk that? Yeesh.
But hey, there's always that 'ol standby: Libs can always bring out that inevitable, tiresome, needs-no-intellect card -- opposition to OWS is "racist!"
As seen in the comments over at the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers:
Right wingers posing as left wingers shouting antisemitic slogans to produce a smear the sheeple like you dutifully propagate. You know, like the smears of those who suggest that Obama is a Marxist.
I wonder how "progressives" would react if conservatives explained away the idiocy of various Tea Partiers that way ...
Several influential New York state lawmakers have received threatening mails saying it is “time to kill the wealthy” if they don’t renew the state’s tax surcharge on millionaires, according to reports.
“It’s time to tax the millionaires!” reads the email, according to WTEN in Albany. “If you don’t, I’m going to pay a visit with my carbine to one of those tech companies you are so proud of and shoot every spoiled Ivy League [expletive] I can find…”
The email, with the threatening subject line of, “time to kill the wealthy,” was detailed and disturbing.
“How hard is it for us to stake out one of the obvious access roads to some tech company, tail an employee home and toss a liquor bottle full of flaming gasoline through their nice picture window into their cute house,” wrote the author of the email.
Why isn't this being covered in the press? All right, we know why. And just remember, folks -- it's the Tea Party that is comprised of crazed, hateful, racist, and radical people. Folks like these always told us so ... the same folks who're now supporting wannbe killers like the above.
As mentioned previously, just imagine -- IMAGINE -- if Tea Partiers had done even a fraction of what these rancid wannabe hippies are currently doing. For weeks -- months -- the lamestream media scoured and dissected Tea Party gatherings for the most minute appearances of "hate," "racism" and the like; however, with these "Occupy" movements, one doesn't even have to try to find all that ... and more:
And then there's the politicians who embrace these cretins.
I wonder, why is it that these unwashed dolts can't do what they claim they want back -- participatory democracy? Why don't they expend their energies like the Tea Party did and elect people into office who will help effect the change they want? The Tea Party was quite successful, after all -- they helped turn the House from Democrat to Republican. This, despite the outrageous ogres the minions in the MSM perpetually made them out to be.
Hell, I know why the hippies won't do what the Tea Party did: Because they know deep down that they'll be unsuccessful. If they even remotely believe that demands such as these are shared by a sizable portion of the American public, then they're as deranged as they are filthy. This is why they have to cause the ruckus they do, because the fact is that everyday Americans couldn't give a sh** about their beliefs and demands. Somehow they think screaming, yelling, protesting, blocking traffic, getting arrested, and carrying pickets will "open people's eyes."
Good luck with that.
Seriously. You can't make this up. No matter what you do or don't do, you're "racist." It's like global warming and George W. Bush -- they're responsible for everything bad around us.
At any rate, third-rate actress/comedienne Janeane Garofalo says the following:
"Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same.
"People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"
Can't find actual racism? You then say it's "covert." Very convenient. And what happens, Janeane, if Cain wins the nomination? He's been steadily climbing in the polls? Would these "covert racists" actually elect a black man president of these United States??
You freakin' moron.
As yet another example of how "progressives" view free speech, not to mention how teachers should NOT do their job, we see this:
Great job there, teach. Not only do you bring your students along to witness your how you're not impartial, but you call people with whom you disagree -- not to mention who hold a very popular (and legitimate) point of view -- "Nazis."
As WR Chandler notes (to whom the hat tip goes for this video), "If he taught my kids, I would pull them out of his class yesterday." Got that right, brotha.
UPDATE: Thanks to AJ Lynch, check out this local news story on the teacher. As AJ noted, notice how they don't ID the teacher but do mention how he's "in good standing." He also, by the way, expressed "regret" that his comments "went too far." Well that's a relief.
Via Ace -- a "progressive" yells "Your mom is a whore" to Bristol Palin:
I like this a-hole's "intelligent" retorts to Bristol's query as to why he said what he did: "Because she's evil." "Because she's the devil." But wait -- I thought "progressives" hated the extreme Religious Right! Why is he sounding exactly like them, then?
MSDNC's Keith Olbermann replacement, "Crazy" Larry O'Donnell, went on yet another idiotic rant the other night, this time about GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry:
And secondly, the Republican party of the 21st century, if we are to judge by the debate audiences, has obviously lost its soul . . . This Twilight Zone: how can this happen? Here's their favorite killer, state-sanctioned killer up there. They boo him after he calls them heartless.
Right. So now we're going to judge the entire GOP by the reactions/utterances of a few idiots at some debates. Boy, this tactic sounds familiar -- what was done to the Tea Party! Y'know, I wonder why when a few assorted knuckleheads at Democratic events make a scene that the entire party isn't so labeled ... nah. I don't wonder why. It's so pathetically obvious by now, why. Yeesh.
Oh, and Larry -- if you're so concerned about "state-sanctioned killing," when will you do a semi-coherent rant about liberal states' abortion policies? If you're SOOOO concerned about the government getting involved in "killing," where's the concern about purely innocent life? Why do so-called "progressives" seem to always reserve their outrage for the executions of heinous killers? Our old friend Perry is a textbook example (surprise!) of this; in comments here and at CSPT he believes he has a consistent "pro-life" view because he "personally" is against abortion and capital punishment. However, when pressed on the issue, he admitted that he "doesn't have the right" to tell a woman what to do with her body ... but he does believe it his duty (right) to lobby state legislatures to abolish the death penalty. The counter to this is, obviously, why does Perry believe he has the right to overturn what a jury and judge(s) have determined through a lengthy judicial process when it comes to a brutal killer ... but not to tell a woman she cannot terminate the life of a 100% innocent baby?
It makes not one iota of moral sense. Much like, as you may have recently read, his views on Israel and the Palestinians which are also shared by far too many fellow "progressives."
You can't get more moronic than the absolute cretins who continually criticize Israel about their "occupation" and "harsh" treatment of the Palestinians ... yet either completely overlook how the Palis (and their Arab allies) feel about, and treat, Israelis and Jews in general ... or just refuse to address it. I'm serious. These people have serious flaws in their basic moral structure.
The catalyst for this post is two-fold. First is this Jay Nordlinger piece:
I was talking yesterday to a friend of mine about the Israel Philharmonic’s experience at the BBC Proms. Demonstrators refused to let the orchestra proceed with its concert. My friend said, “Were they pro-Palestinian?” I said to her, “Well, I would call them anti-Israeli.”
I am pro-Palestinian, and so is Natan Sharansky — and so is Bibi Netanyahu. We want Palestinians, and everyone else, to live in peace and freedom. We are so pro-Palestinian that we actually think they should be free of dictatorship, tyranny, want, squalor, and lies. Something like 1.5 million Arabs — “Palestinians,” if you like — live in Israel. (It used to be that the only “Palestinians” were Jews. The Israel Phil. began life as the PSO, the Palestine Symphony Orchestra.) When Palestinian homosexuals and other “undesirables” flee for their lives from the West Bank or Gaza, where do they flee? You bet.
“Pro-Israeli” and “pro-Palestinian” — very unhelpful terms. Decent people are pro-everybody. But these terms are unavoidable, I suppose, like those other unhelpful terms “pro-war” and “anti-war.” We’re all anti-war (except for psychopaths): Some of us think that this or that war is necessary and justified, some of us don’t.
Precisely. How would history have been different if the Palestinians accepted the 1948 UN Partition Plan? There was the ever-sought after "two state solution" right then and there. But no; though imperfect (as all plans are), the Plan fairly dealt with increasingly difficult issues that the British had gotten weary of (hence, their turning the hassle over the then-nascent UN). What we had was one side accepting the plan and beginning to make their new sovereign home, and the other shunning it -- and then teaming with numerous surrounding countries to obliterate the other new sovereign state. That's right -- obliterate.
And this was just the beginning.
Jews, hundreds of thousands of who were forced to flee their homes in myriad Arab countries as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict, settled elsewhere -- many in Israel. But the Palestinians? Two of their "friends" gobbled up the territory allotted for them (as per the Partition Plan) after their unsuccessful attack on the new Israel. Then, the Palis weren't accepted by their Arab "friends" if they wanted to resettle there. Like ... why?
The history since then, as any fan of history knows, is one of continued Arab aggression towards Israel, and one of continued Israeli survival and victory. 1967 and 1973 were the other two "big" conflicts, but there have been many more "smaller' skirmishes in between and beyond. But the utter idiocy of those believe there is some sort of ... "equivalence" between Israel and the Palestinians continues to know no bounds.
One of those utter idiots (and the second part of the catalyst for this post) is our old "friend" Perry, once a prolific commenter here before he took his morally questionable antics over to Common Sense Political Thought and most recently to his own blog. (I won't link to it; he doesn't deserve the hits.) Some of his past dreck regarding Israel and the Palestinians here at Colossus can be seen here; most recently, however, he's been at his usual self in this CSPT thread. Check out some of his comments (my emphasis):
* How about discrimination against Arabs and Palestinians by Israelis in their own territory – West Bank? Not anecdotal, and pathetic. Your anecdotal information is a starter, but on Israeli/Palestinian/Arab relations, being selective is typical propaganda ...
* Please show me the evidence that the Palestinians want the Jews “eradicated”, or that they have “genocide on the brain”. Based on the Israeli utter inhumane treatment of Gazans, one might be tempted to conclude the opposite as you have. (Perry claims to know about the Hamas Charter, yet amazingly then demands evidence that Palestinians wants Jews eradicated.)
* My problem with the Jews is the way they have behaved toward the Palestinians for over a century now! And make no mistake, the Arabs have put the Israelis on the defensive with their threats and intransigence. (Oh! Good to know Perry cedes a point to the Israelis! Except, of course, there has been a LOT more than just "threats and intransigence" now, hasn't there?)
* The “Jews right of return to Arab lands” based on what, Hube? A proclamation from God? I have just received a proclamation from God that the 1967 boundaries should be recognized and obeyed! (This was response to my question about the JEWS' "right of return" since Perry is in favor of the Palis' right of return to their old homes. Perry didn't know that hundreds of thousands of Jews -- perhaps as high as over one million -- were either expelled from Arab countries after 1948 or basically had to leave due to deteriorating conditions -- threats, violence, killings.)
* Wrong again, Hube! Who is it that is seeking a two state solution for Palestine. Not the Israeli’s, as they continue to encroach on Palestinian territory, which is the behavior of a country who wants a one state solution – Israel. (Perry has obviously forgotten 1948 and all the way up to 1967. Then the Clinton-initiated peace offer which Yassir Arafat rejected. Then the Israeli pull-out of the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, the Palestinians finally SAY they want a two-state solution, and all of a sudden there's a "serious" offer/plan. Despite the fact that, y'know, Hamas still has the destruction of Israel in its charter.)
Nothing really new here, as I noted. And please excuse my profanity in some of the comments at CSPT in response to Perry. The reason for that is 1) Perry perpetually plays a game whereby he conveniently "forgets" what other people have posted, and then demands sources, etc., and even claims that you've lied; and 2) frankly, I've about had it with Jew-bashing. What is it with this irrational distaste for people of the Jewish faith?
As I mentioned in one of the comments at CSPT, I think one of the reasons "progressives" hold Israel in disdain is because they've violated an important "progressive" tenet -- not playing the victim. Israel doesn't play the victim even though they've often been the actual victim. They've held fast, fought back, and developed a modern nation based on democratic principles ... all the while their neighbors have been constantly at their throats. "Progressives" despise that, for this means that Israelis don't need them.
Personally, I think this has a lot (all?) to do with anti-Semitism worldwide. People hate Jews precisely because they've been so successful -- even though they've been persecuted for just about all of their history. But ... why? Why do people disdain a group who values education and hard work? Values family and religious belief? Good Lord, just stop and consider what the Jewish people have contributed to mankind over the centuries -- for example in the fields of medicine and science alone. It's astounding.
As I once told the inimitable Soccer Dad in a fairly lengthy e-mail conversation years ago, I once was a "member" of that elitist "progressive" cadre who viewed the Israelis as conquering ogres who were "subjugating" and "oppressing" the Palestinians for no good reason other than simple hatred and for an outrageous land grab. Yes, that was back in my college days. Surprise that, eh? But, of course, as with anything else, I then grew up.
All of this does not mean to imply that criticism of Israel is anathema. Debating the utility of building more settlements in the West Bank, the effectiveness of myriad security measures, etc., are certainly items for legitimate debate. But do not attempt to play it "straight down the middle" as if there is any real such equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. To wit:
The Palestinians could have their "two-state solution" tomorrow if they dropped their arms, renounced terrorism, renounced terror groups like Hamas, and recognized Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state. Period. Unfortunately, they (and their Arab "friends") are too consumed by the irrational hatred of Jews to do this. And there will be no real peace in the Middle East until this ridiculous and maniacal hatred is expunged.
UPDATE: Great timing. Check out Cal Thomas's article about Israel over at Newsbusters.
On this day of "Always Remember," it is indeed fitting to always remember what some of the mental pygmies on the left have said about this somber day:
Just as the Left's and MSM's demands for "more civility" were a bunch of pure horsesh** (they were, in actuality, an attempt to muzzle the Right and Republicans -- here's the latest example of the blatant hypocrisy), so too, are their standards. Case in point:
On Tuesday, The Blaze posted extensive reports on the mass shootings in both Nevada and West Virginia.
Both stories involved elements regarding the U.S. military. In Nevada, of course, many of the victims were in the National Guard. The gunman’s motives, though, are still not entirely clear.
The shooter in West Virginia, who killed five people (and also an unborn fetus) in one home, seemed to voice a variety of grievances including some anger at having been rejected for military service.
Shayne Riggleman’s murderous actions are getting a great deal of media attention; however, few media outlets are including Riggleman’s self-declaration of his Socialist ideology.
That's all really you need to know. Well, actually, if Riggleman's self-professed belief was National Socialism, the MSM, not to mention our "progressive" friends, would be foaming at the mouth to connect him to talk radio, Fox News, conservative blogs, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Ronald Reagan, and of course George W. Bush. It happens all the time.
Of course, Riggleman's girlfriend claims he was bipolar and skipped his meds. This is a huge factor, probably the biggest of course -- a lot bigger deal than any self-professed socialism. Rational people can recognize this.
But the MSM and modern "progressives" are increasingly far from rational. They demand "civility" then act more uncivil than a prison riot. They connect the Right to virtually any act of violence because the perpetrator once wrote the word "Republican" in a high school term paper. They cry "racism" because a Republican politician jokes that he is the "black sheep" of his/her family.
It's. All. They. Have.
Labor leader James Hoffa to a crowd of supporters in Michigan:
A few minutes later, our president personally thanked him.
(h/t: New Zeal)
... comes from a Media Blog reader regarding former Treasury Secretary Robert Reich's derisive comments about Fox News and the Wall Street Journal:
The American Left's reaction to Fox News reminds me so much of how the international Left reacted to the testimony of defectors from the Soviet Union or East Germany during the Cold War. Tales of people waiting years to buy a motor vehicle or lining up to buy toilet paper were greeted with accusations that the defector (or escaper) was - yes- you guessed it - lying and a CIA 'stooge'. It was all lies concocted by the West as a means to discredit the utopia they fervently believed in. Nothing has changed. (Link)
Actual poll up at idiot Ed Schultz's MSNBC.com page: "Do Republicans Care About the Victims of Natural Disasters?" Choices: Yes, No.
Here are some upcoming polls at Ed's site:
Keith Olbermann, on his new cable access show which draws less than 100K viewers in the key age 25-54 demographic, had old pal Janeane Garofalo on to tell everyone that black people who are part of the Tea Party and the GOP suffer from Stockholm Syndrome:
"But, Herman Cain, I feel like, is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that you go like 'I love that, that can't be racist. He's a black guy, a black guy asking for Obama being impeached.' Or 'it's a black guy whose anti-Muslim. It's a black guy who is a Tea Party guy.'"
"He's a businessman," she said sarcastically. "Who ever pays him. And there may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome. There may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome in there because anytime I see a person of color or a female in the Republican party or the conservative movement or the Tea Party, I wonder how they could be trying to curry with the oppressors. Is it Stockholm syndrome or does somebody pay them?"
Yeesh. There's nothing more racist (and sexist) than "knowing" that blacks, women, or whoever are not acting in what they feel are their best interests.
Chuck Raasch informs us of what the Right knew from the start:
Here is an anonymous, "prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House" quoted in Politico this past week about Obama's re-election strategy should Mitt Romney win the Republican presidential nomination in 2012:
"Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to 'kill' Romney."
By "kill," this strategist and others quoted in the Politico piece appear to mean that Obama, unable to win on his record, will have to shred the former Massachusetts governor's character, relentlessly attack him as a soulless shape-shifter, as "weird" in the buzzword of the week for the Obama crowd, to make Romney appear so unseemly and incapable that voters would have no other choice but to choose Obama, the principled one.
No, Chuck, it's not "appear to mean," it is what they mean. But thanks to your profession in large measure (accompanied by the usual large swaths of "progressives"), we've been told that such figurative language is not acceptable. Such politically harsh lingo wasn't a problem though ... until the Left saw an opportunity in the Giffords shooting.
That was the whole reality: The Left and MSM wanted it to be not acceptable for conservatives to use such language. The whole "new civility" thing was a totally "progressive"-contrived bunch of garbage designed to muzzle the Right.
The talk of the political tough guy — and it is always a guy — is often crudely anatomical. "Rip out his liver," "gut him," "take out his heart," and then the endless variations of the things that one man would do to another's testicles, often with tools.
But "kill?" That's breathtaking, even in this hot-air fraternity.
No, it's not, really. Or, rather, would not be if your brethren in the MSM and so-called "progressives" wouldn't perpetually sit in wait, pouncing on any sort of minor slight, or worse, a tragedy like the Giffords shooting, to ostracize conservatives.
The liberal fraternity never wanted a more civil tone. Just like their like-minded cohorts that run American campuses, they really want a clamp down on views different from their own. Period. And if you insist upon dissent, you're to be treated like someone in need of therapy ... or worse -- a criminal.
The bloated Michael Moore wants President Obama to arrest the head of Standard & Poor’s:
Liberal firebrand Michael Moore called on President Obama to respond to the U.S. credit downgrade by arresting the leaders of the credit-ratings agencies.
On his Twitter feed Monday, the Oscar-winning film director also blamed the 2008 economic collapse on Standard & Poor’s — apparently because it and other credit-ratings agencies did not downgrade mortgage-based bonds, which encouraged the housing bubble and let it spread throughout the economy.
“Pres Obama, show some guts & arrest the CEO of Standard & Poors. These criminals brought down the economy in 2008 & now they will do it again,” Mr. Moore wrote.
Mr. Moore went on to note that the “owners of S&P are old Bush family friends,” continuing a theme he has developed through several films about capitalism as essentially a crony system for the rich and Wall Street, especially the Bush family.
I knew it! This, too, is George W. Bush's fault!!
Not only does syndicated columnist Froma Harrop prove herself a hypocrite, but she doubles down:
Yes, I was angry, but I’m engaging in the defense of my country. I know the tea partiers say the same, but their behavior is that of a national wrecking crew. Most may be nice people who don’t know what they’re doing, but many a country has foundered on the passions of nice people.
As far as the facts are concerned, I stand my ground. Terrorism is not confined to physical attacks.
*Sigh* You think a conservative pundit could get away with such a justification? Cheeyeah, right.
Just look at her quote. Now imagine a reactionary conservative doing the same about, say, anti-war protesters. "Terrorism is not confined to physical attacks" would be the aid said protesters give to the enemy by speaking out against our military efforts. "I’m engaging in the defense of my country" speaks for itself. "But their behavior is that of a national wrecking crew" is the protesters tearing up needed national unity during a war effort. Lastly (and this is perfect against "progressives"), "but many a country has foundered on the passions of nice people" describes myriad liberal policies to perfection: cradle to grave welfare, weak immigration policies, weak law enforcement efforts, head-in-sand foreign policy ... the list is virtually endless here.
Inspired by a few hardcore "progressive" nuts (including our old pal Perry) over at Common Sense Political Thought, here are a few contemporary "progressive" thought contradictions. It's a list that, indeed, could make for a virtually interminable post. And, granted, many hardcore conservatives also engage in some of these (in a reverse way), especially when it comes to blaming or crediting a president alone for economic conditions, so please keep that in mind if you comment.
Feel free to extend the list in the comments.
From the "millions" killed by the two Japanese-bound A-bombs in WW2 to whites being "genetically predisposed" to racism, enjoy:
(h/t to Bluegrass Pundit.)
"Geezer" commenting over at the LGOMB:
If we thought like right-wingers, we could use this [Norway] horror as an excuse to round up all the right-wingers and put them in cages in Gitmo without explanation or charges. Because, y’know, they’re all potential terrorists.
Except, of course, that the very left-wing site on which "Geezer" comments advocates doing that very thing to conservatives -- but even worse. It advocates killing them.
Just. Like. The. Norwegian terrorist.
RELATED: Can the Left Resist the Temptation to Exploit the Norway Attacks? As Insty says, "The answer is 'no.' Next question."
Hey, you blame every terror attack on the "conservative right-wing" -- directly or indirectly -- eventually one will actually stick. Y'know, stopped clock and all ...
... for the climate of hate that led to to
Rupert James Murdoch getting "pied":
Amazing how lame security is, eh?
Via the Newsbusters tip line (which goes out to many contributors, not just me):
The diffrent [sic] forms of white supremacy is amazing, also a really bad term when it should simply be narcissist. When you THINK that you are the greatest in authority,rank or importance it is extremely easy to think nothing you do or say can ever be wrong or immoral. Here's a sitting president who gets verbally lynched on the hour, who has not put 6,000 young soldiers to death based on lies (WMD'S) Saddams [sic] gonna cause a mushroom cloud in america [sic], he also is friends with Bin laden [sic] and helped knock down world trade. We have to act american [sic] people before it's to [sic] late, besides the dead and wounded how much did that cost??
8 years of Reagan remember contra [sic] aid congress refused the funds Reagan lets the CIA become drug dealers to get the loot, all of a sudden O'le [sic] Reagan got forgetful before he really got forgetful no phune [sic] intened [sic]. Well 8 yrs of reagan [sic] + 16 yrs of the bushes=24 yrs of scandle [sic] deficits, war = up for big buisness, ceo's [sic], oil companys [sic] and the filthy rich. So for some of us to think these like minded narcissist [sic] to do anything that would aid this black president to even look successful would like a oxycontin junkie sitting behind a mic telling people how to be a dildo opps i mean dido [sic] head and follow junkie madness. Take a look at the profile of a sociopath and listen to members of congress. Obama signed 2-3 repub bills and they backed away from their own proposal just to make him look bad, so what ever [sic] he does or says they will say the oppisite [sic] if he says yea they will say nea, if he says nea they will say yea. If it were the 50's or 60's he would be dead, but now a days [sic] it would be HELL to pay and the cowards know this. To see a man hated so bad right in front of our face is something folks. I tell ya 50+yrs ago must have been a tremendous hell for the people.This note won't go far in this setting truth to a narcissist is like daylight to dracula [sic] because the only truth is their truth right sheataunn [sic]...
His blog is called, remarkably, "Bridging the Gap." Why? Because, apparently, he wants both sides to "come together" to solve our nation's problems. We're talking about our old pal Perry. However, much like the LGOMB, he doesn't really mean it. They are just words.
Take a look at Perry today in a thread over at Common Sense Political Thought:
Now I am no history buff, but I do know this: Many of the Founders were slave owners, women were not permitted to vote, and the Founders conceived of an electoral college to protect the powerful from the will of the people should the people get too much out of line with their voting. (Link.)
This premise was then challenged by me, among others. Perry refused to back back up his claim about the Electoral College.
I then wrote this about the Founding Fathers and slavery:
It is quite obvious you’re not a history buff, Herr Fossil, for you, like way too many faux “progressives,” seek to impose 21st century values upon what were indeed very forward-thinking people. Though many owned slaves (an accepted practice back then, BTW), many spoke out against it and began efforts to cease the practice.
GOP presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann recently got heat from the MSM (surprise, that) for a remark she made about the Founders working to end slavery. The fact is, she is correct. Even Abraham Lincoln backs this up, as well as the words of many of the Founders themselves.
But this doesn't matter to Perry. He responds:
Making a law which made a black man 3/5 of a white man is hardly “working hard to end slavery”, in my view. That slavery persisted for another 70 plus years, with the vestiges of slavery evident to this very day, can hardly be construed as working hard enough to end slavery for once and for all. Moreover, it appears to me that racism remains alive today – ask most any black person about that. Better is not good enough!!!
When I asked Perry just why the 3/5 Compromise was constructed, here is what we get in reply:
The very existence of a 3/5 compromise apparently is fine with you, Hube, regardless of when it was instituted. I note that Repubs like yourself are more than happy to strive to restore that 3/5 fraction again, by your actions against ACORN and your current efforts to suppress the vote. Racism is not dead yet in the Republican Party.
That sure is some "gap bridging" there, is it not??
For those who may not know much about the 3/5 Compromise (and are modest enough not to make fools of themselves, like Perry did), take a look. And if Perry is reading, you especially need to look here:
The following false statements are just three examples of inaccurate interpretations that persist regarding the three/fifths compromise :
- the 3/5s compromise of 1788 . . . enshrined slavery in the United States Constitution
- African Americans in this country were considered only 3/5s human at one point in history.
- We tried "compromise" and declared blacks to be 3/5s human.
The gap that Perry really needs to bridge is the one that exists in his head.
(Cross-posted at TBD.)
... still defies us. (Apologies to the Kree Accuser Ronan for the title paraphrase.) Armed with Green Lantern oath, Democrat takes aim at ‘right-wing loons.’ And who is this Democrat? None other than Alan Grayson:
In an email sent today to supporters, the former Congressman attempts to draw a connection between the lukewarm reviews for Warner Bros.’ Green Lantern movie, the famous exchange between Hal Jordan and an African-American man from Green Lantern #76 and … the erosion of middle-class America.
Wait, there’s more: Grayson, who lost his 8th District seat last year to Republican Daniel Webster, recasts the classic scene so that he’s the African-American man, and “right-wing loons” are Hal Jordan.
Click the link above to see the classic panels in question (slam-bang awesome art by Neal Adams). Now, if Grayson isn't loony enough making such a comparison (let alone his lack of "the new civility"), he ends his e-mail by ... quoting the Green Lantern oath:
In brightest day, In blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight. Let those who worship evil’s might, Beware my power: Green Lantern’s Light.
If anything, his real connection to comic lore may rest with the fact that he looks a lot like a generic Batman villain:
Y'know, there is a time and place for this sort of stuff -- but the Special Olympics AIN'T IT, you a-holes.
Former Newsweek columnist Ellis Cose, who has a new book out on race relations titled The End of Anger, evokes the 'ol "no sh**, Sherlock" with this incredibly "insightful" comment made on NPR:
What I argue and what I maintain is true is that the sort of societal, official condonement of explicit racism has disappeared, which is to say that even the Tea Party - which, again, appeals to an older, conservative, in many cases racially prejudiced group of people - and then again, let me be very clear. I'm not saying everybody, as far is - who's a Tea Party supporter is a bigot. I think there are not people who are not. But I think they do appeal very fundamentally, as well, to a lot of people who are.
Now, let's be adult here. We know that race plays a role in at least some of the attitudes that some people bring to the Tea Party. That's not going to disappear.
Well gosh, how 'bout that -- groups that oppose the Obama agenda may contain some racists! Who'da thought? Of course, the real problem is that way too many in the mainstream media attempt[ed] to portray groups like the Tea Party as predominately racist. Some may say that even one racist is one too many for a group like the Tea Party; however, how often has the MSM (or anyone else, for that matter) ever criticized a left-wing group for the very shady groups that may like what it does? Like, for instance, communists, Maoists, and anarchists that always show up at anti-war demonstrations? Would you ever see Chris Matthews grill a MoveOn.org spokesperson about these folks affiliated with their group? Yeah, right.
This then moves to the ridiculous "kindred spirit" argument that "progressives" like to trot out whenever a popular (and even not-so popular) conservative movement is afoot. In other words, because some shady sub-groups or people may take part in a more mainstream organization, that somehow means the latter "shares" the formers' values. Again, though, just don't try to make that same argument about "progressives" and communists/Maoists/anarchists, etc.!
And what do you know -- our old friend Perry, who now has his very own blogging home thanks to the generosity of conservative Dana Pico of Common Sense Political Thought, picks up on Cose's too-easy thought processes:
Hatred of Obama: Is Race a Factor?
I definitely think it is, otherwise how does one explain the outright unabashed hatred of President Obama coming from regions and from those who have a history of racial prejudices, and coming from a popular right wing radio host who makes no bones about his hatred for Obama, and his racist outlook, both in general and specifically.
Hey, how 'bout that, everybody? Perry definitely thinks that President Obama's race plays a factor in some people hating him! I wonder how long it took 'ol Per to come up with that thought??
Ironically, the name of Perry's blog is "Bridging the Gap" because he supposedly wants to, well, "bridge a gap" between competing political ideologies. But when you paint the most popular talk show host in the country as a racist based on the "information" from a long-discredited smear site, not to mention resort to revisionist history of busing in Delaware to somehow make your "point" (check here for proof of Per's lame grasp of history), you sure ain't gonna "bridge" too many "gaps."
Remember -- the LGOMB (Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers) head honcho Jason Scott wrote this back in 2006:
While reasonable people can disagree about whether or not George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, nobody disputes the fact that he wanted a "pearl harbor" type event to happen in order to create a pretext for attacking Iraq.
Reasonable people. REASONABLE PEOPLE.
Just keep this little nugget in mind ANY time "Trust Fund" Scott or any of his moonbat minions refer to other idiots (like Birthers) as brain dead buffoons (or any other such colorful term) ... or even mock a real reasonable disagreement.
The ridiculous Marc Lamont Hill, like way too many other faux "progressives," believes that African-Americans are supposed to be some sort of monolithic "uni-mind," with little to no diversity of opinion:
From a political perspective, black Americans shouldn't expect President Obama - or any other black politician - to deal with black issues because of his race. We should expect him to deal with black voters because we are citizens, because we have particular needs and because we voted for him in higher proportion than any other demographic group in history. Not because he looks like us.
(Side note: That's from a political perspective. From a personal perspective, I believe that there's a special place in hell for black politicians who don't support black interests.)
Unfortunately, we live in a world in which black people are considered untouchable and unmentionable by politicians. This is why Obama went to such extravagant lengths to avoid discussing race during his campaign. He understood that to talk about race was to make him a "black candidate" rather than a candidate who happened to be black. This is equally true in our local political scene, where any form of "race talk" makes white voters uncomfortable, undermining a candidate's chances of being successful.
The "side note" is really all you need to know about Hill -- that if a black politician doesn't support a so-called "black interest" (according to Hill's definition, of course, since there is no "standard" definition of "black interest"), that politician should be condemned to Hell! Consider: if a black pol is against affirmative action on grounds that it actually stigmatizes African-Americans more than it benefits them, should that pol go to Hell? If a black pol is against racial quotas in education and/or the workplace, should that pol go to Hell? If a black pol is against automatic business set-asides for minority-owned companies, should that pol go to Hell? Most likely, yes, according to Hill. (Again, I don't know precisely what Hill personally considers a "black interest," but being the good liberal that he is, it's a fairly good bet that he would dub the examples above as such.)
Hill scatters some other examples of group interests in his article: "gay" interests and "Jewish" interests, to name two. But again, what are these interests exactly? Being in favor of gay "marriage?" Does this mean that any homosexuals who aren't in favor of gay "marriage" aren't "authentically gay?" What's a "Jewish" interest? Support of Israel? Does this mean that Jews who are not in favor of a specified Jewish state and/or believe that the founding of Israel wasn't done ethically or legally aren't "authentically Jewish?" And, let's take it further: What are "Latino" interests? Do all Hispanics believe that illegal immigrants deserve amnesty? In-state college tuition? No fence along the Mexican border?
That's the problem with believing in group-think: It does not allow for many -- if any variations of belief or thought. Yet, this is precisely what so-called "progressives" fervently believe in -- that groups of Americans, in particular, "historically oppressed" groups, are supposed to (all) believe in certain things merely because of what the group is. Conservatives, in general and on the other hand, detest viewing the American populace through the prism of race, gender and class. Not to mention, can anyone imagine a [white] politician campaigning on defending white interests? Such is unthinkable. Weren't we taught, after all, especially during the Civil Rights era, that thinking in terms of race was a execrable notion?
Which brings me to the next issue: Hill was on O'Reilly's show a couple nights ago where he made no distinction between a [black] politician supporting a "middle-class interest," or a "senior citizen interest," and the aforementioned "black interest." (He mentions, barely, the former in his article, by the way.) But the distinction here should be obvious: Middle-class and senior citizen Americans are made up of ALL races and ethnicities. Though they are a interest "group" by political standards, no one seriously claims that all middle-class people should believe the same things, or that all senior citizens likewise should. And, as O'Reilly correctly pointed out, perhaps the biggest "interests" that these groups routinely desire are things that they deserve -- ie, contributed to, like more of their own money (aka less taxes), and Social Security and Medicare.
Believing that groups of people should think alike and that they have specific, monolithic "interests" only serves to, in the long term, to tear this country asunder. And sometimes I honestly think that that is exactly what faux "progressives" wish to do.
Check out this nonsense, courtesy of the Democratic Governors Association:
Stop Vote Suppression!
Now that they control a majority of statehouses across the nation, Republicans are attempting a bold power grab to disenfranchise voters and repeat the Florida election debacle of 2000.
Right now, states with Republican governors or new GOP majorities are ramming through bills designed to make it harder for people to vote.
They'll stop at nothing to steal the Presidency.
We have to act now to stop these bills from becoming law. The Democratic Governors Association is the only organization devoted solely to electing Democratic governors who will veto any and all attempts to limit voter rights. Use the form at the right to stand with the DGA and demand that Republicans stop their politically-motivated attempts to suppress votes.
What exactly are these "voter suppression" methods, pray tell? Does the DGA actually mean to claim that various voter ID bills are an attempt at "suppression?" That the very same thing needed to buy alcohol, and to use a check to pay for something, among many other things, is an attempt by the GOP to "steal" the presidency?? How freakin' pathetic is that? It's the only thing I can think of that the DGA could possibly be referring to. Interesting that this ad makes no mention of precisely what the dastardly GOP is actually up to, eh?
As always, "progressives" just rely on your stupidity.
Headline at The Hill.com: GOP suicide bombers.
How 'bout that "new civil tone," huh?
Via the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes out to all contributors:
Try honesty you Right-Winged Jack-Booted Reich THUGS. You unpatriotic pieces of crap can go to hell. Get Cancer and enjoy your interactions with the "Greatest Medical System in the World", I'm a nurse asswipe. I know better. You should hope you are NOT my patient.
(Gosh, your captcha question must be tough for your regular Neanderthal
... let's take a gander at yet another hilariously blatant example.
Here's Whoopi Goldberg just last week excoriating The Donald about ranking on Barack Obama -- his birth certificate and his smarts:
And here's Whoopi in 2005 ... ranking on President George W. Bush's ... smarts:
Could we call Whoopi ... racist, perhaps, hmm ...?
Piggybacking on Duffy's post below, there's much to add to the general euphoria surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden ... except for one thing: The inevitable politicking from both sides. As expected, the LGOMB (that's Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers), especially Jason "Trust Fund" Scott, are bragging that "Obama got the job done where George Bush failed." And then adding, "Suck it, GOP."
Well, it is true -- intelligence under the previous administration was indeed unable to locate and hunt down OBL, while the current one was. All Americans should applaud our current government's efforts and ultimate success in this regard. Only very hardened partisans (on the Right) are nitpicking Obama's decision, and it's coming off as petty. They ought to take a page from Sean Hannity (who happens to be on my radio at present) and laud Obama -- period.
And the very hardened partisans on the Left (like Scott and the LGOMB) ought to cease the gloating and consider the following, idiots that they are: Reports indicate that the needed intelligence to track OBL down and kill him came from enhanced interrogation methods used at ... Guantánamo Bay. Are Scott, the LGOMB, and other far-left nuts as Iowahawk describes below?
Folks like the LGOMB prattled on endlessly about George W. Bush's "war crimes" for authorizing enhanced interrogation methods used in the GWOT (General War on Terror). Yet now ... Barack Obama
Need it be [re]stated that Obama campaigned on just the opposite in 2007 and 2008 -- and that these very promises were a huge factor in getting him elected?
I haven't checked around a whole heck of a lot since getting home from work (work = something that "Trust Fund" Scott has never had to worry about), but the most honest -- and consistent -- far-left assessment I've seen thus far comes from "Nangelator" over Common Sense Political Thought. He writes regarding the fact that OBL's killing was made possible via interrogations at Gitmo:
This is disappointing to me. It’s finding out we won by cheating. Some of the people that would gloat over this would also gloat over a 50% discount at a shop, won by torturing the owner until he relented.
America shouldn’t win by being more evil than the enemy. Or as evil.
Certainly, I do not agree with such a sentiment, not even a little; however, Nangelator often opined quite negatively during the previous administration about the use of enhanced interrogation methods and using Gitmo as a prison in general. And now he's not happy with using these exact things to kill OBL. Like it or not, he's consistent.
Not so, the LGOMB. Their memories are about as functional as their logic and general intellect. All of those strategies that Obama maintained from the Bush administration are now conveniently forgotten, and we get posts by them like this. And gloating at conservative blogs. (Kudos to David Anderson at Delaware Politics for doing what the LGOMB does regularly at their site: severely editing "Trust Fund" Scott's comments there.)
In other words, "Torture? Say what?"
Again, congratulations to President Obama for his courageous decisions, and kudos to all the servicemen and intelligence personnel involved in the operation.
UPDATE: Group that Killed Bin Laden was Smeared (by progressives) as Dick Cheney's 'Assasination Ring.'
Due to the recent plethora of "progressive" labeling of [all] Birthers as "racists" -- which, let's face it, is just the latest extension of so labeling ANY criticism of President Obama -- a Tea Partier came up with the perfect appellation for people who do just that (again, blame "racism" for any criticism of the Commander-in-Chief): Racers.
BREWER: There were people who took that very exact same stand (questioning his birthplace) when George W. Bush was president. They said the exact same words that you're saying about President Bush, and they never demand – wait, wait, wait, wait - and they never demanded to see a birth certificate.
KATZ: They didn't say it was race. Everything that comes out of the racers, and they exist - the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Huffington Post", some people at your very network, and you know I enjoy having these conversations with you. They are so focused. Everything is about race. It's not about race. When we talk about Obama and the policies, it's about the awful policies. It's about the inability to bring down debt. It’s about the inability to tackle the deficit. And when everybody says, “Oh, they're just after this because of race,” it is nonsense. It's a way to stop people from having conversation. Political correctness at its worst. If we want to talk about the issues, let's talk about the issues.
Of course, as Noel Sheppard notes at the link above, no one questioned George W. Bush's birthplace and hence, his citizenship. (Amazing, these mental giants the networks have on camera.) Nevertheless, "she was actually making Katz's point for if the same kind of attacks were being lodged against a white president, they can't stem from racism."
"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" is back -- this time on Al Gore's Current TV network. The premiere is June 20.
Does Comcast or Verizon even carry this channel?
We saw yesterday how idiot liberals will stretch guilty by association to the Nth degree to politically assassinated an opponent; btu what happens when an idiot liberal actually makes threats of physical violence?
Juan Jose Gutierrez, the president of an immigration activist group called Vamos Unidos, predicts that hundreds of thousands of people will march in Los Angeles on May Day, demanding legalization for illegal immigrants. In an appearance Sunday on the Univision program "Al Punto", Gutierrez said that legalization is the only way out of the current policy stalemate. Expressing alarm that federal authorities have deported more than 800,000 illegal immigrants during the Obama administration, he warned that unless Congress passes immigration reform, mounting frustrations with enforcement of immigration laws could lead to violence. Here is an excerpt from his comments:
What is the country going to do? When are they going to start arresting – not 800,000 – all of us? When are they going to declare war on us? When will there be a civil war in this country? Is that what the country wants? Is that what the president wants? Is that what the leaders in Congress want? That there be conflicts like we had in the sixties, where the violence explodes? Because our people – it has to be said clearly – can't take any more.
Now, first, imagine if someone from the Minutemen had made a statement like that, warning of violence if the government doesn't seal the border with Mexico because American citizens have had enough. The usual suspects in the MSM would do their usual schtick, decrying the "lack of civility" and branding the Minutemen and anyone remotely associated with them as "racists." But Gutierrez's warning won't be met with shock and horror by the usual "progressive" swill and MSM; indeed, if his minions do resort to violence because they don't get what they believe the government should do for them (ironically, it's not even their government!), any violent response to their violence is what will be criticized. We'll hear countless anecdotes of family hardship endured by [illegal] Mexican immigrants and about "the lack of political will" to "do something" about their plight.
That these immigrants illegally entered our country doesn't matter. That American border towns are subject to crime and violence doesn't matter. That illegal immigration costs border state governments countless millions of dollars doesn't matter. These don't fit ... THE NARRATIVE TM.
Or just an instance of [yet another] idiot "progressive?"
In a video report about Sarah Palin's visit to Wisconsin, did CBS News ... use a different -- i.e. old -- tape to purposely exaggerate the size of the anti-Palin (union) crowd?
Notice the placard for "Vote for Kloppenburg for Supreme Court" ... on April 5!!! Why would someone be carrying such a sign when that election day occurred over ten days prior?
Some folks in the comments over at F.R. note that the sign is legit -- that it was indeed at the rally. So, then, we're left with two options: Either CBS is at it again with being deceptive, or the "progressive" at the rally holding that sign is a total and complete moron.
The Republicans "want to destroy the whole world!"
Pretty hard to top that. Unless some other "progressive" nutjob suggests the GOP wants to eradicate the multiverse. I wouldn't put it past them!
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) has stated that freshmen GOP representatives came to Washington to -- wait for it -- kill women. She also said GOP efforts to defund Planned Parenthood were akin to those of Nazis.
“This is probably one of the worst times we’ve seen because the numbers of people elected to Congress. I went through this as co-chair of the arts caucus," Slaughter said. "In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re here to kill women.”
Check out this mental midget:
Former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who had previously announced his intentions to run for the presidency of Egypt, said Monday that “if Israel attacked Gaza we would declare war against the Zionist regime."
What's the definition of "insanity," again? Trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result ... ?
... and why Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq were stupid too.
Here's Salon.com's execrable Joan Walsh:
Well, it’s so shallow, too. You know? And that is what you’re saying, Chris. It doesn’t matter. If something different happened, they would have a different principle. So they’re not, they’re not applying any kind of coherent principle of foreign policy or of domestic policy. They’re just looking for opportunities to cheap shot the President. The people who were criticizing Bush had a coherent, had coherent reasons to criticize him. It wasn’t like that. There was coherence to the point of view, where as here, I think you’re exactly right. They would just be trashing him whatever he did, and it feels that way. It feels cheap, it feels shallow. (Link.)
Got that? Criticism of George W. Bush's sojourn into Iraq was "coherent," but criticism of Barack Obama's adventure into Libya is merely "trashing the president."
Let's put it this way, Joan: You are an incoherent elitist POS.
The LGOMB (that's "Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers") grind their collective teeth and tell us that "Libya is not Iraq."
Via Politico: Helen Thomas to Playboy: Jews 'own the White House'
"[The Jews are] using their power, and they have power in every direction,” she told Playboy. “Power over the White House, power over Congress … Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood. Same thing with the financial markets. There's total control … It isn't the 2 percent. It's real power when you own the White House, when you own these other places in terms of your political persuasion. Of course they have power. [To the interviewer] You don't deny that. You're Jewish, aren't you?"
She also had some controversial views about memorializing the Holocaust.
"There's nothing wrong with remembering it, but why do we have to constantly remember?" she said. "We're not at fault. I mean, if they're going to put a Holocaust museum in every city in Germany, that's fine with me. But we didn't do this to the Jews. Why do we have to keep paying the price and why do they keep oppressing the Palestinians? Do the Jews ever look at themselves? Why are they always right? Because they have been oppressed throughout history, I know. And they have this persecution. That's true, but they shouldn't use that to dominate."
Be sure to read the entire interview at Playboy here. It's truly astonishing how a supposedly educated woman has such a lack of knowledge of actual history -- which is, of course, very convenient since that's usually how your typical vehement anti-Semite operates.
Oh, and Helen? That red nail polish is like polishing a warthog's tusks, sweetheart.
Time magazine headline: Wisconsin's Governor Wins, but Is He Now Dead Man Walker?
Perhaps -- but it's from the other side:
This morning, Rep. Keith Ellison (Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, Minn.) appropriated a hearing on Islamic radicalism by weeping his way through a speech about whata-buncha-nasty-bigots Americans are. He chose as his case in point Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a Pakistani-born Muslim American who rushed to lower Manhattan on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, to assist in rescue efforts, and died in the collapse of the World Trade Center. Here’s how Representative Ellison tells the story of the aftermath of his death:
After the tragedy some people tried to smear his character solely because of his Islamic faith. Some people spread false rumors and speculated that he was in league with the attackers only because he was Muslim. It was only when his remains were identified that these lies were fully exposed. Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a fellow American who gave his life for other Americans. His life should not be defined as a member of an ethnic group or a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow citizens.
Does Ellison’s account check out with reality?
No. It is actually pretty close to the opposite of the truth. In fact, six weeks after the September 11 attacks — before Hamdani’s remains were identified, which Ellison implies to be the turning point of public perception — Congress signed the PATRIOT Act into law with this line included: “Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted heroically during the attacks on the United States, including Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani descent, who is believed to have gone to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now missing.” That is, Hamdani was actually singled out for particular high honors among the thousands of victims of the September 11 attacks.
And there's very little evidence of the rumors surrounding Hamdani that Ellison spoke of. Read the rest of Matthew Shaffer's article.
Don't wanna pay forced union dues? Find another job, then.
Read all about it here.
I blame the consistent hate rhetoric generated by sites such as this.
MSDNC's Ed Schultz calls Wisconsin's budget -- wait for it! -- "racist" with guest -- wait for it! -- Al Sharpton!
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Reverend, when you hear that tax dollars would be diverted from all taxpayers to pay for private schooling -- where does that take us in your opinion?
REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: I mean, that’s the epitome of an insult, Ed. At one level, you have this governor as well as in Ohio and other states and we are talking Wisconsin here, that are talking about what they are dealing with terms of the deficit, in terms of being in the red, the unions, the teachers, everyone gives back. They say we’ll concede a lot of these things, we all will sacrifice, take collective bargaining off the table.
That’s not enough. On top of that, they now want to spend public dollars to give vouchers to private schools for kids that will never ever come from the neighborhoods that most need public education. I’m against vouchers, period. But now to come with this is an insult to add insult to injury, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Well, I’ll say it. This is a racist budget. I mean, anybody with a brain knows that those 82 percent of the kids under the poverty level are never going to go to a private school, and yet the governor wants the parents of those kids to take a portion of their tax dollars and fund private schools. I mean, it is a racist budget. You cannot get around it. It’s picking on the poor. It’s picking on the inner-city kids. How else can you read it?
You can read several ways, idiot, and by all means please do so at the link above!
The Federal Bureau of Investigation yesterday arrested abortion supporter Theodore Shulman, 49, and charged him with communicating interstate threats against two pro-life advocates. Shulman is currently being held without bond at Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City, which is a federal holding facility.
Operation Rescue officials, who have been on the receiving end of Shulman’s threats, were informed about the information in the complaint against him before it went under seal. The two people Shulman threatened are simply referred to as Victim 1 and Victim 2 and the pro-life group told LifeNews.com it is withholding the identities in order to protect their safety.
In addition to the two victims listed in the federal complaint against Shulman, Operation Rescue’s two full-time staffers Troy Newman and Cheryl Sullenger as well as pro-life blogger Jill Stanek have been targets of the pro-abortion activist’s threats. Bryan Kemper, the founder of Stand true, the pro-life group that sponsors the red tape day for students to stand up in silent solidarity for unborn children at their schools, also received death threats from Shulman.
I blame the consistent hate rhetoric generated by sites such as this one.
Via the AP:
A young college student from Saudi Arabia studying chemical engineering in Texas purchased explosive chemicals over the Internet as part of a plan to hide bomb materials inside dolls and baby carriages to blow up dams, nuclear plants or the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush, the Justice Department said Thursday.
"It is war ... until the infidels leave defeated," the student wrote in online postings.
It's a conundrum! Based on "progressive" logic, we can either blame the hate rhetoric generated by the Left during the former president's terms in office, OR we can blame radical Islamist ideology. Since neither is an acceptable explanation for the Left (and, granted, the latter explanation is most certainly the reason why this cretin did what he did) , nothing will be blamed ... or, at least, very little will be so reported about it.
On the other hand, of course, if this had been a white supremacist who had targeted, say, Al Gore's residence among other places, the MSM would be tying the goon to the Tea Party, the GOP, the Koch brothers, talk radio and Fox News in less than a nanosecond.
Look at what happened to Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna's car after he unveiled an education reform plan:
Hey, I think his idea of basing 50% of a teacher's evaluation on student achievement (only one facet of his overall plan, BTW) is crackers as I've yet to see such a plan that remotely makes sense and/or is fair, but this is how you react?? Luna's also gotten death threats and a teacher even showed up his mother's house!
The mainstream media had to make up stuff about the Tea Party so as to give credence to their preferred narrative. There's nothing to make up here, but don't hold your breath waiting to see this on the MSM.
"It's quite striking the way almost every lie the left ever told about the Tea Party has turned out to be true of the government unionists in Wisconsin and their supporters." -- James Taranto
Let's take a gander:
In 2003, faced with a new Republican majority intent on redrawing an electoral map that preserved power for Democrats that the voters no longer gave them, the Texas Democrats fled the state. And in 2009, rather than allow a vote on an election security bill that they didn’t want, the Texas Democrats brought the state legislature to a halt — killing the voter ID bill and everything on the calendar that followed it. . . . So the Democrats are trying to bring both houses of the legislature to a full halt to kill the union bill. It may work, at least temporarily, just by running out the clock. But if what has happened in Texas is any guide, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Democrats in Texas have won very little since the 2003 run to the Red River. And after they filibustered the voter ID bill in 2009, which a heavy majority of the voters supported, they suffered an unholy beating in 2010. The Republicans now have a super majority in the House, and the man who led the filibuster, state Rep. Jim Dunnam, was defeated. He didn’t lose just because of that filibuster, but having that on his record certainly didn’t help him.” (Link.)
The unemployed, the under-employed and regular folks trying to pay their bills aren’t likely to have a lot of love for people who (a) have jobs, (b) work at taxapayer expense, (c) get paid more money than the average taxpayer, and (d) go on strike because they don’t want to pay a dime toward their own generous benefits.
Not to mention that the public isn't exactly amorous with public sector unions.
The most infuriating aspect of all this is the media's brazen hypocrisy and double standards. NEVER, EVER AGAIN listen to a liberal MSM pundit or a "progressive" bitch about "incivility," or "heated rhetoric," or "advocating violence." NEVER, EVER. They don't mean it. Or, rather, they mean it ONLY when it possibly -- even so remotely as to defy all sense of rationality -- can tar a conservative/Republican. Witness the reports on the Tea Party last year and most recently the garbage following the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. But you'll be hard pressed to see the scrutiny the Tea Party withstood put forth against the Wisconsin protesters. Not. By. A. Long. Shot.
Via the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes out to all contributors (profanity edited):
Yo Dip shits [sic]! Please stop your blatant IGNORANCE! RELIABLE media is reporting the TRUTH! ITS CALLED UNION BUSTING YOU F***ING IGNORANT SCUMBAGS!
AND ITS BEEN STAGED TO LLOK [sic] LIKE A BUDGET ISSUE AND IF IT IS ITS BECAUSE THE F***ING CORRUPT ASSHOLE RUNNING THE STATE HANDED TAX CUTS TO THOSE THAT NEED THEM THE LEAST!
WE KNOW WHO'S FUNDING THIS BULLSHIT AND THE WAR IS JUST BEGINNING!
I'LL PUT IT IN TERMS THAT IGNORANT MORONS CAN UNDER STAND [sic] . . . USING THE STUPID C*NT'S WORDS WHO THINKS SHE'S CAPABLE OF BEING PRESIDENT AFTRE [sic] WHICH QUITTING A JOB SHE OBVIOUSLY COULDN'T HANDLE AND SOLD OUT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER . . .
WE'RE LOCKED AND LOADED AND READY TO RECLAIM THE ONCE GREAT NATION THAT YOU AND THE KOCH BOYS ARE TRYING TO DESTROY!
I FUCKING DARE YOU F***ING ASSHOLES TO CONFRONT PEOPLE IN PERSON . . . F***ING COWARDS!
So much for that "new civility!"
First we witnessed the so-unbelievably-hilariously-hypocritical-comment-it-just-had-to-be-a-joke by the self-righteous Bill Maher in regards to Bill O'Reilly's Super Bowl interview of President Obama. (In case you missed it, here's what the douche said):
I just feel like the most difficult part of his job must be to quelch the rage that somewhere must be inside him to say ‘I’m the President of the United States, you don’t talk to me like this. I’m not some left – I’m not Al Sharpton you know, I won this job.’ And Bill O’Reilly who claims he’s such a patriot – how unpatriotic it is in my view to treat a President that way. How does that look to other countries when you’re interrupting and belittling?”
BILL MAHER said this. It doesn't get more knee-slappingly delicious than that, folks.
Now big Obama booster Oprah Winfrey is on the bandwagon:
Of the negative mood of the country, Oprah added, “I think everybody complaining ought to try it for once.”
She said the presidency is a position that “holds a sense of authority and governance over us all,” and that “even if you’re not in support of his policies, there needs to be a certain level of respect.”
George W. Bush, when asked about these remarks, said "Heh. Where was all this concern about 'respect' in the mid-2000s?"
If they're not deleting your comments and/or banning you merely for the unforgivable sin of disagreeing with them, they want to beat you up. Here's what one LGOMBer said about Bill O'Reilly after his interview with President Obama yesterday:
Seriously, if I ever run into that cheese-dick, I’m just going to nonchalantly kick him in the seeds. They can take me away in handcuffs, I don’t care.
Oooooooh! Aren't you quaking in your boots? I'm sure O'Reilly is.
Oh, and need I mention how "civil" that comment isn't ...?
Funny how we haven't heard about this, eh?
A self-described Massachusetts "political activist" was arrested Monday night and charged with sending a threatening e-mail to Florida Rep. William Snyder, R-Stuart, an hour after the Arizona shooting that killed six and critically injured U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
The unsigned e-mail, sent to Snyder's state House of Representatives address on Jan. 8, told the legislator to "stop that ridiculous law if you value your and your familie's [sic] lives."
Snyder has proposed a bill cracking down on illegal immigration for Florida in a manner similar to what Arizona has done.
DFTN = Doesn't Fit The NARRATIVETM.
As noted previously, "progressives" don't mean a single word they say when they claim they want "civility."
Man, remember just a few short weeks ago after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tucson, Arizona that we were told we need to be "more civil." Hell, our representatives and senators all just sat together at the recent State of the Union address this past week as a symbol of this new "civility." But, alas, anyone with half a cerebrum knew that so-called "progressives" did not really mean it when they demanded this "civility." As we've noted here numerous here, these faux progressives only want their opponents to be more civil.
Because we haven't seen any indication that they're being any more civil. At all.
The latest examples:
* Nutjob Democrat Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia blames -- wait for it -- racism for his party's defeat in this past November's elections:
Speaking to Arab television network Alhurra, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) said Republicans made big gains in November in part because “a lot of people in this country … don’t want to be governed by an African-American.”
Even more objectionable to some Americans, he said, is that Obama is a black president “who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society — that’s a basic philosophical clash.”
Democrats, Moran said, lost for “the same reason the Civil War Happened in the United States … the Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery.” Virginia, of course, is one of those Southern, formerly slaveholding states.
I'd bring up the 'ol "racism/last refuge/scoundrel" saying, but you knew that already. I don't know which is infinitely more risible -- Moran's disgusting attempt to equate those opposed to Obama's policies with slaveholders, or the fact that he made his remarks to an Arab TV network, whose societies actually still practice slavery let alone are preposterously socially (and politically) backward compared to our own.
(Of course, this cretin overlooks the insanely obvious: That somehow this "racism" ... elected a black man as president in the first place!!)
Worse still, Moran's pathetic spokeswoman defended his comments:
“With nearly 1,000 identified hate groups in the U.S. and recent studies showing a majority of Americans believe racism is still widespread against African-Americans, it is no secret that our country has and continues to struggle with racial equality,” Hughes said. “The congressman was expressing his frustration with this problem and the role it played in the last election. Rather than ignore this issue or pretend it isn’t there, the congressman believes we are better off discussing it in order to overcome it.”
Indeed. It probably played as big a role as the number of actual racists in the Tea Party. In other words, miniscule. But, as usual, it's the perfect scapegoat for dopes like Moran. And, ultimately, it will backfire on him (and the party). After all, the MSM and the frothing pundits at MSNBC day in and day out clamored about supposed Tea Party "racism," and the GOP still managed to gain more House seats than they did 16 years prior. If there really were racists throughout such organizations, the GOP never would have gained what they did. People recognize that it merely a false MSM NARRATIVE TM that is constantly forwarded ... exactly like the wait-no-longer-than-a-few-minutes-after-the-Giffords-shooting screaming that the shooter was a Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity acolyte.
* In New Hampshire, Belknap Democratic Chair Ed Allard recently said "[Republicans] are going to hang themselves. And we're going to help them do it."
Again, wasn't such rhetoric supposed to be halted after the Tucson shootings? We've just seen someone from the network that bitched the most about such metaphors use exactly that, not to mention a Democrat rep. going on a minutes-long rant comparing the GOP to the Nazi Party ... among many others.
So, in a word, screw these faux "progressives." You don't mean a single word you say when you claim you want "civility." Republicans should have laughed in your face before the State of the Union and insisted on the traditional seating instead the amalgam we saw.
Did MSNBC's Rachel Maddow just use the term -- GASP! -- "locked and loaded"?? Why yes she did! Scroll to about 4:05 in the video below:
Here's the relevant transcript:
[FORMER RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR DOUG] HEYE: First, I thought you had a good pun when you said depending on what angle you looked at it. I actually watched it at the Tea Party Express webpage. She was looking at that camera. Apparently, the pool camera was a bit off center and was what most people saw, whether they watched it on CNN or on other networks that streamed it on their webpage.
There are two constants that we see, anybody who worked on Capitol Hill can tell you on State of the Union day. One is that Sheila Jackson-Lee, congressman from Houston, is going to be in a seat by probably 9:00 a.m., camped out to get a front row seat.
MADDOW: Eliot Engel, too, him and his mustache, right there, locked and loaded, ready to go. Yes.
I thought we were supposed to stop using such violent metaphors, right? And MSNBC was the among the most vociferous leading the way!