Don't jump the gun, unless ...

... we're talking about a conservative. Case in point: comics guy Kurt Busiek. He tweets yesterday about the recent NSA/spying flap:

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:

The Washington scandals have been trending for weeks now, Ron. With nary a word from you and your ilk. Triply depressing.

Tweet

Comicbook guys come to Bradley Manning's defense

... which is fine, of course, but again we see their utter hypocrisy, not to mention selectivity. First, there's Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid:

And Rick Remender:

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:

In subsequent posts, Brubaker claimed that he's "not a fan of either side, even slightly," and that "none of them (503 [c][3] 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.

Tweet

You just can't make this sh** up, man

Via The Corner: MSNBC's Martin Bashir claims that saying "IRS" is akin to saying -- wait for it! -- "ni**er."

Yes, I'm serious.

Tweet

Tales of the L.I.V.s

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:

Tweet

Mark Waid also finds a way to cry "racism" regarding Obama criticism

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:

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.

Tweet

New American holiday: May 15th, End of Racism Day

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.

Tweet

Former frequent target of government wrong-doing backs government wrong-doing

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.

Tweet

If Dan Slott doesn't like your tweets, he'll try to have you booted off Twitter

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:

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:

Tweet

Laugher of the Day

'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.

"Cut his heart out and throw his liver to the dogs," Dan? Like this, you mean? Or this? And most infamously this?

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.

Tweet

Jimmy Palmiotti: Yet another anti-gun comics guy

He Tweets:

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.

Tweet

Superior Spider-Man's Dan Slott doesn't burst his bubble (again)

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:

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:

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":

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.

Tweet

MSNBC's nitwit Touré was vehemently racist and anti-Semitic in college

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:

• Conrad Muhammad, "the would-be heir to Louis Farrakhan’s anti-white Nation of Islam." He was Farrakhan's "hip-hop minister" who blamed Jewish "bloodsuckers" for ... the hole in the ozone layer.
• H. Rap Brown, a.k.a. Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin and author of the autobiography Die Nigger Die! Brown was wanted by the FBI for inciting a riot and a gun violation. He served time in the '70s for robbery, and in 2000 was convicted of murdering a [black] cop.
• Lenora Fulani. Fulani once wrote that Jews “had to sell their souls to acquire Israel” and had to “function as mass murderers of people of color to stay there.” (She later apologized.)
• Frances Cress Welsing, "a self described black supremacist." Welsing's claim to fame, such that it is, was using her scientific "genius" to theorize that white people are "the genetically defective descendants of albino mutants," and stated that racism "is a global power dynamic by white people to prevent white genetic annihilation."

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.

Tweet

Blogs -- the apparent bane of modern comics creators

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.

Tweet

OK, fine. Let's equate pro-choicers with Nazis

After all, the Third Reich effected the most thorough genocide of the 20th century, did they not?

Johns Hopkins denies recognition to pro-lifers, equates them with white supremacists.

Tweet

"Progressive" tolerance, empathy and understanding

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:

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."

Tweet

Add Kurt Busiek to those comics creators who don't get it

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?

Tweet

Disagree with Ron Marz and you're an "ant"

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:

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:

Tweet

Orson Scott Card's Superman tale in limbo now

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.

Tweet

Mark Waid redux

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):

Then:

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.

Tweet

Mark Waid -- what a "tolerant progressive!"

Comics writer Mark Waid apparently got wind of my post yesterday in which I criticized his statement regarding new (and anti-gay marriage) Superman writer Orson Scott Card. And, he didn't like it:

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."

Tweet

How original! George W. Bush included among Hitler, Mao, et. al.

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"

Tweet

Heaven forbid! A conservative comics writer is against gay "marriage"

... 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.

Tweet

Left-wing assassin pleads guilty; M.S.M. totally silent

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.

Tweet

Oh, irony

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!

Tweet

My name is Clueless

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.)

Tweet

Jumping the gun

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.

The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers, predictably, jumped on it immediately as a case of intentional racism. Disappointingly, so did others. The LGOMB's Delaware Douche wrote,

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.

Tweet

Thanks for the black eye

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.

Tweet

Iowa columnist pulls a Delaware Dem

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.

Yep.

Tweet

One week after ...

... 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.”

Tweet

What do we do?

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.

• Banning semi-automatic assault weapons. I've no problem with that. However, "semi-automatic" means to fire the thing, it requires a separate pull of the trigger for each shot. How is this fundamentally different from a handgun?
• Banning high capacity magazines. I've no hassle with this, either.
• Gun shows are banned. This doesn't have to happen. What should happen is that the private dealer "loophole" -- dealers which do not have to perform background checks -- should be eliminated.
• Waiting periods. If background checks can be done in minutes, then why? What purpose do they serve, especially if one is in fear for his/her life?

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.

Tweet

It's time for "Fun With 'Progressives'"

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.

Tweet

Today in Racism vs. Not Racism

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.

Tweet

This is what leftists want!

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.

Tweet

Racism vs. Not Racism

Gag video mocks Harrisburg, PA's mayor = RACISM.

Jamie Foxx jokes about killing all the white people in his latest movie = NOT RACISM.

"Dressing up" like tennis star Serena Williams = RACISM.

The NY Times' Maureen Dowd says that the GOP is a "universe of arrogant, uptight, entitled, bossy, retrogressive white guys" = NOT RACISM.

Saying Boss Obama is like Tiger Woods because he plays a lot of golf = RACISM.

Boss Obama's 2008 inauguration reverend claims "all whites are going to hell" = NOT RACISM.

Tweet

I'm sure this "happened" just like it "happened" on Capitol Hill

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.

Tweet

Today in "W.T.F.?? progressivism"

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!

Tweet

It ain't time to S.T.F.U. yet, I guess

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?

Tweet

A word from the Angry Left

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.

Tweet

Obama inauguration reverend: "All whites are going to hell"

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.

Boss Obama presents Dr. Lowery with the
Presidential White Cracker Medal.

Tweet

Hey! These sound familiar!

Check out how "tolerant" "progressives" express themselves regarding a possible Mitt Romney victory next month.

Sounds eerily like Delaware's own moonbat "progressives," doesn't it?

Tweet

MSNBC "tough guy" wants to fight Romney's son

"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."

Tweet

Hollywood working on 9/11 Truther flick

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.

Tweet

But they're the tolerant ones!

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.

Classy.

Tweet

Hey, remember Gabby Giffords?

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?

Dicks.

Tweet

Thanks for the black eye

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.

Tweet

What did the teacher do wrong??

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.

Tweet

Latest useful idiot

Bill Press:

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.

Un. Real.

Tweet

Idiot talks to an idiot

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?

Tweet

Possibly the most insane example of racer-ism ever

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.

Tweet

Predictably infuriating

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?

Tweet

How so pathetically predictable

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!

Tweet

Yeah, this pretty much sums up how the Left reacts

(h/t to Shirley.)

Tweet

Mitt caused an old woman's cancer death?

Really?

Wow. Then, based on this standard, Boss Obama has caused almost sixty thousand deaths.

Tweet

The G.O.P. should use Harry Reid's tactics

Based on how Harry Reid has been conducting himself lately, I think the GOP should utilize the same tactic:

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!

Tweet

More "progressive" pols looking to use coercion against Chick-fil-A

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?"

Tweet

The difference is coercion

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.

Meanwhile, our local idiots not only lie about Chick-fil-A, they also show their legendary faux "tolerance" and "empathy."

Tweet

Why the lady is so pathetically stupid

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.

Tweet

More "bigotry of low expectations" or ...

... 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.

Tweet

Classy!!

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.")

Tweet

Acceptable bigotry

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?

Tweet

He wasn't responsible for the "explosion"

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.

Tweet

The new civility

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!

Tweet

Why MSNBC's ratings are in the crapper

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.

Tweet

Make way for the loons

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!!

Tweet

How the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers reacts to Scott Walker's recall victory

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):

• "I think both republicans and democrats can agree that Scott Walker is a horrible motherfucking piece of shit. It is what Republicans like about him and Democrats dislike. It is what accounts for the turnout on both sides."

socialistic ben:

• "they dont see HIM as a horrible fucking piece of shit, Jason. they see YOU and ME as horrible blah blah blah.. and they like that Walker fights dirty against us, and “punishes” us for gittin’ all uppity. They think he’s a hero giving queers wedgies and tossing mud on feminazis."

• (On the Democrats gaining control of the WI Senate): "cool. now they can start obstructing."

Podium:

• "Breaking: NBC projects Walker wins. This is a sad day for Wisconsin."

Flutecake:

• "Watched the whole evening on twitter, no cable tv. I am really sad for Wisconsin. So many people worked so hard against so much out of state money. Those right wingers are zombies voting against their own best interest. Very sad."

kavips:

• "As a nation we’ve gotten past having dummies at the polls before. We actually had US citizens voting to keep slaves. Can you believe it? We’ll get through this too."

X Stryker:

• "As soon as I heard Obama up 6, I knew we lost. Obama won the state by twice that. Looks like the voter suppression laws worked – could not get enough of our people out."

think123:

• "I’m thinking the time is ripe to go after NFL players unions. How all those minority players manage to keep confiscating money from the owners is hard to figure. The Wisconsin vote tells us people want bosses in control, workers should just work, shut up."

Tweet

The Left and speech control

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens.

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.

Tweet

If I was the victim, I'd sue MSNBC

Suspect: I Beat Up White Man Because I Am Mad About Trayvon Martin Case.

Tweet

Wimp Lawrence O'Donnell trashes Mormons

... and you know why? Because they won't threaten him. Y'know, like Muslims would if he DARED do a segment like this about Islam.

View the "courageous" segment here.

"Bravely" standing up to Mormons
everywhere, 24/7.

Tweet

Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the mainstream media all say, "SUCCESS!"

Youths Screaming “This Is For Trayvon” Beat 78 Year-Old White Man in Toledo.

Tweet

Just imagine ... aw hell, you know by now

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.”

Tweet

The "'Ya Think??" Comment of the Day

Former NAACP leader accuses Sharpton and Jackson of ‘exploiting’ Trayvon Martin.

Tweet

A word from the Angry Left

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:

Fu** You!

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!

Tweet

As if we needed proof

... 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.

Tweet

Next violent act can be blamed on ... The Boss

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
Whoa!

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!

Tweet

A tale of two apologies

When MSNBC's Ed Schultz called conservative pundit Laura Ingraham a slut, he later apologized. And Ingraham accepted.

Fast forward to today: Rush Limbaugh apologized over the weekend for his "slut" comments towards Sandra Fluke. Her response? Apology refused -- live on "The View," by the way.

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.

Tweet

Rush Limbaugh hypocritical criticism thread

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.

Tweet

Spare us all the self-righteous indignation

Woman called 'slut' by Limbaugh is 'stunned, outraged.'

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.

Tweet

Andrew Breitbart passes away

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.

*Sigh*

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.

Tweet

Hate speech worse than infanticide

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?"

Tweet

From the "Imagine if it was a Republican administration" file

Be sure to read the Daily Caller's exposé on Media Matters ... and its coordination with the White House.

Tweet

Get a freakin' LIFE!

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.

Tweet

And he's taken it upon himself to deem virtually everything "racist"

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.

Tweet

Debbie Wasserman-Idiot just doesn't get it

... 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."

Tweet

Is liberalism killing comics?

Via Insty comes word of the site Bleeding Cool whose Darin Wagner asks this -- in my opinion -- ridiculously obvious question (no offense to Darin). The intro:

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.

Tweet

The perfect sentence

"The Left’s much-vaunted powers of empathy routinely fail when confronted by those who do not agree with them politically." -- Mark Steyn

Tweet

O.W.S.er burns American flag

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.

Tweet

Should be titled "Some in la-la land ..."

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.

Tweet

Play a profane tune for an invited guest, then complain because people call you names in return

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!!

Tweet

Maybe if he merely used a rhetorical "target" symbol

... 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.

Will we hear from Chrissy Matthews, Larry O'Donnell, Al "Resist We Much" Sharpton, and Ed "Least Influential" Schultz about this? Or from the LGOMB?

Don't hold your breath.

Tweet

Today's O.W.S. moment

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.

Tweet

Today's "Imagine if the Tea Party said it" moment

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.'”

Tweet

Do these idiots even have the slightest clue what they write?

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.

My God.

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!

Tweet

It was bound to happen

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.

Tweet

Most asinine thing you'll read today

At MichaelMoore.com (via The Corner): Penn State Riots About White Men Not Liking to Be Held Accountable.

This is what a complete douche (the article's author) looks like, FWIW.

Tweet

Tea Party racist? Uh huh -- try OWS-ers

You can be sure the MSM will skip this:

"All those fat rich white people, you love protecting them, I'm sure." Nice, eh?

Tweet

They're just peaceful, law-abiding protesters!

Let's see if THE NARRARIVE^TM is true to reality:

Boston: Three are charged with dealing crack; situation "deteriorating."

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":

OWSer found dead in tent in Vancouver:

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.

In Phoenix, several OWSers were arrested for violating urban camping laws:

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,

• The LGOMB attempts to tie the Tea Party to less-than-savory fringe groups. Oops.

• The LGOMB's "Unstable Mental State" lambates groups associated with the Tea Party. Again, oops.

• The LGOMB's "Delaware Douche" does same yet again, writing "I don’t have much sympathy for [Karl] Denninger, because I disagree with economic libertarian views, and for the fact that he got into bed (figuratively) with Sarah Palin and her radical racist hordes in the first place. The old saying is you make your bed, so lay in it. Uh huh.

• Unstable Mental State warns of -- GASP! -- Tea Party poll watchers which can "make voting a real hassle." I wonder what sort of hassle these people create.

• Unstable Mental State worries about a Tea Partier who does WW II re-enactments dressed as a Nazi. Should we be worried about these Stalinists/Marxists/Leninists, then?

• Unstable Mental State mocks what the Tea Party stands for. Of course, at least they knew why the protested ... or at least knew their appropriate target. The OWSers? Not so much.

• Remember -- the entire Tea Party is racist because some idiot writes an idiotic letter. But don't dare paint the entire OWS movement as violent! That's unfair!

• LGOMB member "Numbski" refers to Arizona's still-adjudicated immigration law as something "that would rival Stalin’s Soviet Union," and wonders why the Tea Party didn't protest. I'm still waiting for a post by him wondering why the OWSers aren't camped out in front of the White House due to Obama's prodigious Wall Street ties.

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.

Tweet

OWS-ers beat up old people

Tell me what these losers want, again?

More here.

Tweet

Overwhelmingly white OWS-ers get violent and act racist

In Washington DC:

Notice how the all-white crowd prevents a black man from getting his two year-old daughter safely home? Racists!

Tweet

Laugher of the day

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.

Tweet

The "right kind" of black guy

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?

Tweet

This is what they support

Keep in mind the logo here at left. This is the current logo of the LGOMB -- the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers -- demonstrating support for the OWSers. Demonstrating support for this:

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.

Tweet

Those who support O.W.S.

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.

• Communist Party USA
• American Nazi Party
• Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran
• Barack Obama
• The government of North Korea
• Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam
• Revolutionary Communist Party
• David Duke
• Joe Biden
• Hugo Chavez
• Revolutionary Guards of Iran
• Black Panthers (original)
• Socialist Party USA
• US Border Guard
• Industrial Workers of the World
• CAIR
• Nancy Pelosi
• Communist Party of China
• Hezbollah
• 9/11Truth.org
• International Bolshevik Tendency
• White Revolution
• International Socialist Organization
• PressTV (Iranian government outlet)
• Marxist Student Union
• Freedom Road Socialist Organization
• ANSWER
• Party for Socialism and Liberation

Now, you may be asking: "But Hube, isn't this sorta like guilt by association?" Well, let's see:

Was this?
How 'bout this?
Or this?
Or this?
Or this?

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??

Tweet

Our M.S.M. at work (or not)

Via Sharp Elbows: Howard Stern does what the MSM won't do regarding the Occupy movement (language warning):

Tweet

Progressive racism

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.

Video:

MSNBC = Must Smear that Nasty Black Cain.

Tweet

Progressive racism

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.

Tweet

Progressive Racism

They're at it again. Why does the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers (LGOMB) hate black people so much?

Tweet

A product of Ed School

Via Darren:

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 NARRATIVE^TM.

Tweet

Progressive racism

Last nameless "Touré," a 9/11 Truther who, unbelievably is given credence network and print media, shows his racism towards Herman Cain in Time magazine this week:

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

• How can we feel America hates us when a black man is elected president?
• Can We Say 'Fuck Whitey' If the President Is Black?
• Whom do we rail against if the guy in the Oval Office is one of us?

Lovely, eh?

Tweet

More evidence that racism isn't a problem anymore

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.

Tweet

Remember when we were supposed to denounce violence?

... 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!"

Tweet

The bigotry of the Occupy Wall Streeters explained

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 ...

Tweet

Today's Occupy Wall Street Moment

Via Politico:

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.

Tweet

Today's Occupy Wall Street Moment

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:

• Example #1.
• Example #2.
• Example #3.
• Example #4.
• Example #5.
• Example #6.

Ironically (and hilariously), the vast majority of these protesters appear to be white. Does that inherently make them, like the MSM always asked about the Tea Party, "racist?"

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.

Tweet

GOP is "racist" ... yes, even if they support Herman Cain

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.

Tweet

Thanks for the black eye

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.

Tweet

The new civility

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?

Tweet

I wonder about this

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."

Tweet

Let me tell 'ya something:

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 Israelis have only ever wanted to be left alone and live in peace.

• The Palestinians (and their Arab "friends") have, since 1948 refused to recognize Israel (with just a few exceptions in the decades since), attacked it three times all-out, countless times in minor altercations and via terrorism, and some entities even have in writing the explicit desire to annihilate Israel and Jews in general.

• When there has been a legitimate peace offer made, Israel has accepted it and even given back land acquired in a defensive war (see: Egypt).

• Israel has even given back land acquired in a defensive war when there hasn't been a serious peace offer (see: Gaza Strip).

• Israel has made land-for-peace offers to the Palestinians, the most generous of which was during the Clinton administration where the Palestinians would have had approximately 95% of their original land area back. They refused this offer.

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.

Tweet

Always remember what some of our lefty friends think about 9/11

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:

• 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. And while nobody denies the fact that George Bush has been the biggest beneficiary of Osama Bin Laden's inhumanity, I think it is probably a stretch to say that he was "happy" that the attacks happened. -- Jason "Trust Fund" Scott, proprietor of Delaware Liberal.

• Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. -- Rasmussen, May 4, 2007.

• There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't—think it can't be proved, is that [George W. Bush] was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact.-- former DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

• The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any. We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any. -- Noam Chomsky.

• MSNBC host Keith Olbermann made a bold statement, which he feels is a taboo subject, and that is the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 occurred because former President George W. Bush “did not prioritize.” Olbermann further added that the reason no one discusses such a topic is because it’s a “painful, awful truth to confront,” that 3,000 people died because the Bush administration had other “agendas” other than to fight terrorism. (Link)

• ... I do believe the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower Seven, building seven, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved, World Trade Center Seven. World Trade Center one and Two got hit by planes. Seven, miraculously, for the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible. -- Rosie O'Donnell on "The View," March 29, 2007.

• If Bush had followed Clinton’s advice, and kept up the focus and pressure on Bin Laden and Al Queda, perhaps 9/11 would have never happened. But it did, and it was Bush’s fault we endured the loss of 3,000 Americans. You fucking Republicans want to politicize national security, fine. We can do that. You want to play game, fine. Your death toll is higher than ours. -- Delaware Douche, Delaware Liberal.

• Who remembers that square jawed hero, George E. Pataki springing into action on 9/11? Not me. I just remember George Bush reading to kids for 11 minutes, and Dick Cheney pissing his pants in some bunker in Idaho. Then I remember the BushCo braintrust using 9/11 as a pretext to start a war with Iraq so that President Dim wit could land on an aircraft carrier and get reelected. -- Jason "Trust Fund" Scott, May 2, 2006.

Tweet

How 'bout this?

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.

Tweet

The new civility

Labor leader James Hoffa to a crowd of supporters in Michigan:

A few minutes later, our president personally thanked him.

(h/t: New Zeal)

Tweet

Comment of the Day

... 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)

Tweet

Fun with polls

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:

• Am I Too Fat? a) Yes b) No c) Are you f***ing joking?
• Does Barack Obama Care About America? a) Yes b) No c) Of course -- he's the Second Coming of Christ.
• Is Rick Perry a Cannibal? a) Yes b) No c) Yes but he only prefers rib meat.
• Is Chris Matthews Gay? a) Yes b) No c) I think he's transsexual.
• Do You Miss Keith Olbermann at MSNBC? a) Yes b) No c) Who?
• Is Al Sharpton an Asset to MSNBC? a) Yes b) No c) You're a cracker.

Tweet

This is the real racism

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.

Tweet

USA Today columnist realizes "the new civility" is a joke

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.

Raasch continues:

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.

Tweet

Fat guy wants Obama to act like he always said George Bush did

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!!

GEORGE W. BUSH:
There's NOTHING for which
he can't be blamed!

Tweet

The new civility

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.

So, once again, we unabashedly see that the Left does NOT give one sh** about "civility" in dialogue. They only care about it as it pertains to their opponents. To wit, see here and here.

Tweet

Think like a "progressive"

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.

• George W. Bush is solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks after being in office about eight months (even though Bill Clinton could have nabbed Osama bin Laden but refused), yet Barack Obama isn't at all to blame for the economy even though he's been in office two and a half years.

• Attacks like those perpetrated by Jared Loughner and Anders Breivik should be immediately linked to right-wing Christian conservatives despite contrary evidence (or none at all), whereas completely obvious Muslim acts of terrorism should be downplayed and more thorough investigations are needed.

• Presidents are solely responsible for economic conditions. The boom of the 1990s was exclusively the work of Bill Clinton, despite a GOP takeover of the House and Senate two years into his eight years as president. This rule doesn't apply, however, when the economy is awful, even if Democrats hold all branches of government. In this case, a GOP filibuster in the Senate is the sole cause of obstructionism and lack of progress.

• Burning American flags and threatening the president of the United States are free speech, but corporations (or people) giving money to a political candidate of their choice is an "affront to the First Amendment."

• It's OK to constantly trash conservative women (think Palin, Bachmann among others) as "dumb," "ignorant" and "superficial;" however, the slightest inkling of same towards "progressive" women means you're "sexist," "chauvinistic" and "hateful," and the NOW crew will be all over your case.

• Rooting against victory in Afghanistan and Iraq is "patriotic" because it's "dissent;" however, dissent against being forced to buy health insurance is "close-minded" and "selfish," and "patriotic" means you want the public to pay higher taxes.

• Congressmen like Allen West and Joe Wilson are rude, crude people, but representatives like Alan Grayson and Sheila Jackson-Lee are heroes.

Feel free to extend the list in the comments.

Tweet

Hey, he makes about as much sense as your typical "progressive"

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.)

Tweet

Laugher of the Day

"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 ...

Tweet

Will liberals apologize?

... for the climate of hate that led to to Rupert James Murdoch getting "pied":

Amazing how lame security is, eh?

So, we'll wait for apologies from the LGOMB, Perry and many others since they all were so damn quick to demand it from Sarah Palin, et. al., after the Giffords shooting.

Tweet

A word from the Angry Left

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]...

Tweet

Just D.U.M.B.

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.)

Tweet

Even in defeat, that pariah of pure blowhardness ...

... 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.

Ye gad.

If anything, his real connection to comic lore may rest with the fact that he looks a lot like a generic Batman villain:

Tweet

The "new civility"

Tweet

Jackasses disrupt Special Olympics

Y'know, there is a time and place for this sort of stuff -- but the Special Olympics AIN'T IT, you a-holes.

Tweet

The "incredible" intellect it takes to invoke racism

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."

Tweet

From the annals of moonbat history

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.

Tweet

The lamenting of the dearth of authentically black politicians

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.

Tweet

Do they really believe this crap?

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.

Emphases mine.

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.

Tweet

The "new civility"

Headline at The Hill.com: GOP suicide bombers.

How 'bout that "new civil tone," huh?

Tweet

A word from the Angry Left

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
Tea-Thug "readers")

How quaint.

Tweet

With all the "progressive" hypocrisy abounding lately ...

... 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 ...?

Tweet

Progressive hypocrisy and the death of bin Laden

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

• reneges on his promise to close down Guantánamo Bay prison not only within the promised one year, but seemingly for good now,
• reneges on his "commitment" to hold civilian trials for Gitmo detainees, and instead opts to give them military trials -- exactly what George Bush wanted to do, and for which he was criticized endlessly by the Left,
• not only doesn't cease previous administration actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, rendition and enhanced interrogations at Gitmo and elsewhere, but even ups the ante with Predator drone strikes in central Asia.

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.'

Tweet

Love it

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."

Tweet

But does anyone even get this channel?

"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?

Make us citizens ... or else!

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.

Another bit of doctoring from CBS?

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?

Here's the video link. Now, check it out around the 17-19 second mark. "comps4spice" over at Free Republic made a screen capture of it:

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.

Can't get much worse than this

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!

Total Idiot of the Day

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:

Oh really. Bring it, then

This time you won't get the Sinai back:

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 ... ?

Once again from the MSM: You're too stupid to understand why Obama is doing this

... 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.

'Nuff said.

Laugher of the Day

The LGOMB (that's "Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers") grind their collective teeth and tell us that "Libya is not Iraq."

LMAO!!!!

Amazing how this old b**ch was coddled for years by the White House

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.

How 'bout that "new civility," eh?

Time magazine headline: Wisconsin's Governor Wins, but Is He Now Dead Man Walker?

Peter King's hearings on radical Islam "just show?"

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.

Wisdom from a Wisconsin Democrat legislator

Don't wanna pay forced union dues? Find another job, then.

Atlantic City 5th grader phones threat to George W. Bush

Read all about it here.

I blame the consistent hate rhetoric generated by sites such as this.

Beyond parody

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!

I'm sure MSNBC and the MSM will be all over this

Pro-abortion activist threatens lives of pro-lifers:

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.

I blame all the "progressive" hate rhetoric of the previous ten years

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.

Still more union thuggery

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.

Reality bites

"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:

A word from the Angry Left

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!"

Aw, boo-freakin'-hoo

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?"

How our local lefties like to debate

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 ...?

The New Age of Political Civility in action

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 NARRATIVE^TM.

The New Age of Political Civility in action

DCCC Launches “Drive to 25” Ad & Grassroots Campaign in Targeted Districts. (Emphasis mine.)

"Targeted?" "TARGETED??"

As noted previously, "progressives" don't mean a single word they say when they claim they want "civility."

The New Age of Political Civility in action

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.

The New Age of Political Civility in action

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!

Kindred spirits

Here's none other than Cuba's Fidel Castro sounding exactly like the LGOMB (for the uninitiated, that's the "Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers"), among many others, on the January 8th Arizona shootings:

The congresswoman was seriously wounded by a bullet in the head. Doctors were fighting to save her life.

She is married to NASA astronaut Mark Kelly. She was first elected to Congress in 2006 at the age of 36. “She is a supporter of migrant reform, stem cell research and alternative energy”, measures that are hated by the far right.

She was re-elected as the Democratic representative in the past elections.

When her father was asked whether she had any enemies, he replied: "The entire Tea Party”.

It is known that the former US vice-presidential candidate in the 2008 elections and Tea Party leader, Sarah Palin, published on her website, as the aim for supporters of her party, a map of the congressional districts of 20 of the representatives who had backed President Obama’s proposed health reform bill and she had them marked with the viewfinder of a rifle.

Here's a few samples from the LGOMB on the Giffords' shooting:

Probably just an isolated incident. Not related to the right wing terrorism that Beck and company have been advocating. Not at all related I’m sure.

She just won a close election against a guy who held a “target for victory” shooting event featuring fully automatic M16s to “remove” Giffords – so I’m sure that this guy was just a nut and not influenced by the GOP’s bloodthirsty philosophies regarding “2nd amendment remedies” to election results that they don’t like.

Arizona is starting to resemble Germany in the 20,s and 30,s, economic hardships tend to make the bullies lose control. This is probably the opening salvo in what will become a very ugly decade, the right wing noise machine will insure that violence is a viable option for the stupid to take.

She was on the famous Sarah Palin “Target List” and according to Tucson Citizen, Rep. Giffords was shot “point blank in the head.” That makes it a political assassination. I don’t think that it is hyperbole to say that Democrats are being targeted for murder for being Democrats.

Sarah Palin, mission accomplished.

Etc.

Now, am I actually comparing the LGOMB to an authoritarian like Castro? You tell me:

• Both insist the Tucson shooting is linked to the right-wing, whether via Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" ad or otherwise.
• Both insist on suppressing speech they do not approve of.
• Both utilize physical threats -- including actual desires for death -- for actions "threatening the nation."
• Both view policies like strict border enforcement and calls for more vigorous adherence to immigration laws as "unjust" and "inhuman."

Is this comparison unfair? Before you answer, consider whether the LGOMB would ask this very same question about someone in the opposite political direction. Since that answer is highly likely a "no," well, there you go.

Screw them. Hard.

The New Age of Political Civility in action

Madison, Wisconsin WTDY morning host John "Sly" Sylvester mocked Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch in a most personal way on January 17:

During the Jan. 17 segment in which Sylvester criticized Kleefisch's cold-calling attempts to try to woo businesses from Illinois to Wisconsin, Sylvester mockingly impersonated Kleefisch and attributed sexual acts as the reason for her election. Sylvester made a later, additional sexual remark about Kleefisch as the on-air discussion turned to high speed trains.

Sylvester's on-air segment also included references to Kleefisch's colon cancer, including discussion of whether Kleefisch uses a wig or has a poor hairstyle.

A statement from the American Cancer Society called the references "disrespectful" and said Sylvester made light of Kleefisch's fight with cancer "under the guise of political discourse."

You can listen to Sylvester's remarks here.

Station chief Rex Charger defended Sylvester saying "It was obvious sarcasm and was not intended to be taken literally." Oh, really? You mean like Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" ad wasn't supposed to be taken literally??

What a joke the Left, and increasingly society as a whole, has become.

Yep

There’s more evidence that the liberal media influenced Eric Fuller than there is that Palin influenced Jared Loughner.

Forgive the actual perpetrator; threaten phony ones

It just gets "better": Tucson shooting victim Eric Fuller tried to visit the home of shooter Jared Loughner this past Friday "to forgive them and possibly their son."

So let me get this straight -- Fuller forgives the actual perpetrator of last Saturday's heinous crime ... but he threatens with death those who he thinks (without a scintilla of evidence) are ultimately responsible?

I blame hate sites such as this for egging Fuller on.

"Toning down the rhetoric"

Hey, didn't Keith Olberdouche just recently apologize for any of his past hatred on the air? As could absolutely be predicted, that didn't last long:

I think he of all of us has the right to say this: http://bit.ly/gt430h Democracy Now interview w/Tucson survivor who names names.

As Greg Pollowitz reports,

The “he” referred to above is a Tucson survivor and disabled veteran Eric Fuller who says, “It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target.”

Why would Fuller have the "right" to say what he did ... when it's a lie? And why would Olbermann agree with that assessment? Oh, wait ...

And this is relevant to the Arizona shooting how ...??

South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn:

“All [of] this stuff taking place in the Chambers the other day, when the Constitution was being read — all that stuff is uncalled for,” Rep. Clyburn (D-SC) told the Ed Schultz radio program.

Clyburn says there may be a “direct link” between Sharron Angle’s “Second Amendment remedies” comment and the reading of the Constitution with the attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords over the weekend.

Indeed. The Constitution is known for driving people over the edge, a'ight! I say there may be a "direct link" to microcephaly and the mere fact that Clyburn exists.

Next we have former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey:

Tomorrow they were going to vote to repeal this health care bill — and it’s not going to go anywhere in the Senate — it’s one of the reasons that this guy was angry and pretty obvious that he is, at least from me, where I sit that he’s mentally ill and deeply troubled. I wouldn’t make too much of whatever his political views are.

Does this absolute moron know something which no investigator or reporter has yet determined -- that Jared Loughner was a fanatic about ObamaCare?

Once again, it's all about THE NARRATIVE ^TM. As previously noted, it makes faux "progressives" feel good about themselves, but ultimately it makes them look as dumb as a box of rocks. (Actually, that's not very fair to the rocks.) After all, just look at the latest, remarkably shown by CBS News:

Why do they do it? (THE NARRATIVE.)

That is the question. Do what, you ask? Who's "they?"

Why do "progressives" insist on trying to link just about any evil occurrence to conservatives and Republicans ... despite virtually no evidence? What purpose does this serve, other than to make them look ridiculously foolish ... and to only galvanize the determination of their political opponents even more?

It's already been stated so here and on many other [right-leaning] sites over the past few days, but the rapidity of the Left in attempting to tie Sarah Palin's "target" graphic of Representative Giffords to her shooting has been nothing less than hideously revolting -- especially since the evidence of such a connection is zilch. This is called "THE NARRATIVE ^TM," folks. Y'see, the Left doesn't win -- and can't -- in the realm of actual ideas. The American public by and large wants smaller and more efficient government. Groups like the Tea Party came about largely around this philosophy. So what does THE NARRATIVE ^TM then dictate? Tea Partiers are racists, because our current Chief Executive happens to be a black man. In Arizona and across the country, Americans are fed up with illegal immigration and the federal government's inept response to it. States, like Arizona, take matters into their own hands as a result. The public overwhelmingly supports Arizona's efforts. So what does THE NARRATIVE ^TM then dictate? The state's governor and its citizens are bigots and xenophobes.

Republican politicians, notably George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and Ronald Reagan are/were considered "stupid" because they made occasional verbal blunders. Of course, myriad Democratic pols did precisely the same thing, notably Al Gore, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. But THE NARRATIVE ^TM dictates that the latter are just "Al being Al," "Joe being Joe," and "Barack being Barack." Or, they had hard days when their miscues were recorded. And so on. The former? Stupid.

American universities have had this whole concept down to a science for some time now. They enact "speech codes" and "hate speech" provisions so sweeping and broad -- and nebulous enough -- that just about anything they deem "hateful" or "offensive" will be treated as such. Unfortunately for conservatives, it is their speech that is usually on the receiving end of such specious judgments. Don't want to participate in "Gay Pride Day?" You're a homophobe. Oppose affirmative action (and run a "bake sale" to illustrate why it's wrong)? You're a racist. Support Israel's right to self-defense? You like "apartheid." This is the campus version of THE NARRATIVE ^TM. And campuses will do what is still as yet unthinkable in general American society: They will prosecute you for such speech that goes against THE NARRATIVE ^TM, using kangaroo courts, denial of counsel, refusal to face accusers, and forced "re-education" like "diversity" seminars and "sensitivity training" to "alleviate" what ails you. Funny, that, just like what was noted in the second paragraph above , the positions noted in this one (usually by conservatives) are also favored by a majority of the American public. (Thankfully, so far, one outstanding organization battles such inanity -- and usually emerges victorious.)

These type of "progressives" know their ideas are not popular, and they resent it. And they know their ideas aren't likely to become popular anytime soon. So what recourse do they have? Well, at American universities, such "progressives" do what is noted above -- because they have a young, captive audience who they think they can intimidate. It works often enough, but when one student fights back, and makes use of groups like FIRE, the sunlight shone on these "progressives" much more often than not causes them to skitter back into the woodwork.

In the real world, these "progressives" know they can't get away with what their campus brethren can. So they resort to their allies in the mainstream media and attack those whose views they find abhorrent -- and label them "racists," "bigots," and attempt to link any sort of politically oriented violence to them ... despite what the evidence actually proves. Again, this is THE NARRATIVE ^TM.

And you can tell how pathetically desperate these "progressives" are getting, especially now that the Democrats took a beating last November. If it wasn't pathetic enough when they attempted to create out of whole cloth a story that members of the Congressional Black Caucus were the victims of hollered racial epithets right in front of the Capitol, we're now witness to THE NARRATIVE ^TM being utilized once again to tie conservative speech and images to the shooting of a congresswoman and federal judge, among others ... Despite. Not. One. Scintilla. Of. Evidence.

The funny thing is, 'ya think these miscreants would learn, especially in this day and (Internet) age that it won't work. If anything, it'll end up backfiring. The phony story about the CBC and racial epithets didn't stop opposition to ObamaCare, and it didn't prevent the Democrats from getting crushed on Election Day. Perhaps this is why those invoking THE NARRATIVE ^TM are now so ridiculously transparent in their desperation, not to mention haste, in disseminating it. Unlike 20 years ago, now there is the Internet, Fox News, and myriad conservative radio outlets to counter the previous monopolistic and monolithic MSM. (And I don't know which is more comical -- the increasing desperation of those invoking THE NARRATIVE ^TM, or their "explanations" as to why Fox News and conservative radio hosts are so damn popular.)

So, in conclusion folks, it's OK to get miffed when these dimwitted "progressives" take advantage of an incident like that which happened on Saturday. But just keep in mind that ultimately it will come back to hurt them -- where it hurts most: in the wallet and at the ballot box. That is the cost to these "progressives" of ... THE NARRATIVE ^TM.

Well, well, well ...

Look who just snuck in an "apology" to this over-two year old post.

Why did it happen now, I wonder? It's how faux "progressives" operate. Remember, Daily Kos yesterday erased a post which said that Rep. Giffords was "dead" to the writer.

Pathetic.

What if ...

... Jared Loughner, the guy who shot Rep. Giffords in Arizona yesterday, was a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, et. al.? What then?

What would you on the Left suggest?

Meanwhile, for all of you of the mindset of the LGOMB, theblogprof reminds us that it is FAR from just Limbaugh, Beck, Palin and whoever who use such ... "heated rhetoric":

"I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed," Barack Obama on keeping taxes from increasing, December 6, 2010

"A Republican majority in Congress would mean 'hand-to-hand combat' on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy," Obama, October 6, 2010

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama in July 2008

"Here's the problem: It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger." Obama on banks, March 2009

"I want you to argue with them and get in their face!" Barack Obama, September 2008

“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” Obama to Latinos, October 2010

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“ Obama on the private sector, June 2010

Just a few more to add to an already extensive list to show how preposterously ridiculous the moonbats are.

Scoring points

Just keep in mind that even as the execrable Delaware Douche immediately fosters the belief that the shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was "inspired" by the rhetoric of the right-wing, it was he once said this. And waddya know? He mocks that very quote later, in this post, saying that, at least he "apologized." But it will be a long time (never, actually) before people like Sarah Palin apologize, blah blah blah.

Delaware Douche really -- and I mean REALLY -- must be as stupid as he is heinously physically ugly. After all, based on his "logic," we should expect

• Democratic New Hampshire state rep. Nickolas Levasseur to apologize,
• Lefty talker Mike Malloy to apologize,
• The ACLU (yes, them!) to apologize,
• myriad anti-George W. Bush protestors to apologize,
• the Democratic Leadership Committee itself to apologize,
• Greenpeace to apologize,
• a New Jersey teachers' union to apologize,
• Slate editor David Plotz to apologize,
• Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to apologize,
• former NYT Middle East Bureau Chief Chris Hedges to apologize,
• The Associated Press to apologize,
• Texas Rep. Ciro Rodriguez to apologize,
• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to apologize,
• former D.C. Delegate Rev. Walter Fauntroy to apologize,
• Howard Dean to apologize,
• Bill Press to apologize,
• Al Gore to apologize,
• Arianna Huffington to apologize,
• former CNN anchor Rick Sanchez to apologize,
• the Council on American Islamic Relations to apologize,
• the creators of "The Matrix" to apologize,
• gabber Joy Behar to apologize,
• cartoonist Ted Rall to apologize,
• former Democrat PA Congressman Paul Kanjorski to apologize,
• "Daily Show" correspondent John Oliver to apologize,
• the president of Immigration Clearinghouse to apologize,
• post-2010 election leftist Democrats to apologize,
• MSNBC's Ed Schultz's producer James "Holmy" Holm to apologize,
• our president, Barack Obama himself, to apologize.

Pretty exhaustive list, ain't it? And that only scratches the surface. And Delaware Douche, so quick to note that he once "apologized," gets a mental block when it comes to other instances.

"Contemporary Progressivism": Conservative desires for less and limited government are "hate" and must be regulated and/or forcibly stopped.

On the other hand, efforts against (for example) radical Islamic rhetoric and especially actions must be tempered with "tolerance," "respect" and due process. Not to mention that violence in movies, TV and video games are "artistic/creative expressions" that should not be censored in any way, not to mention same with regards to pornography.

Just so you know what these ... "people" are really about.

In related news, uber lefty blog Daily Kos erased an entry from one of its bloggers that said Rep. Giffords "was dead to her." How come, I wonder?

It seems that the Giffords shooter is "just" a garden variety nutjob, with some of his favorite books being both Mein Kampf AND The Communist Manifesto. More updates available here.

UPDATE: Attention Delaware Douche and his a**hole cohorts: “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.” (Link.)

Now get bent. And good.

UPDATE 2: More oops.

Liberal hate rhetoric

Controlled waterboarding of murderous terrorists to gain vital information? WAR CRIMINAL!!!

Electrocution of Sarah Palin because you don't like the sound of her voice? A "win-win for everyone"!

I blame the hate rhetoric generated by sites such as this.

Liberal hate rhetoric (and actions)

Vote against the DREAM Act? You're a BAD person! Therefore, we'll paint swastikas all over your office and the words "criminal government" and "blind follow blind."

I blame the hate rhetoric generated by sites like this.

Liberal hate rhetoric

Or maybe it could be titled "What If A Conservative Had Said It?" but you know what I mean. Check out what MSDNC pundit Ed Schultz's producer, James "Holmy" Holm, said about 20 of the nation's top CEOs:

The president is going to speak with business leaders that are sitting on $1.9 trillion dollars -- $1.9 trillion dollars. Maybe what we should do is put a gun to their head and just say, give us that $1.9 trillion dollars, you don't need to read anything, just hand it to us!

What d'ya think Schultz's response would have been if some Republican member of Congress had said "We've got hundreds of al Qaeda detainees just sitting there in Guantánamo with valuable information. Maybe what we should do is put a gun to their heads and just say, 'Give us that info, you don't need no Koran, just spill it -- or else!'"

Liberal hate rhetoric (and actions)

I blame the hate rhetoric generated from sites like this:

Last Friday we held our downtown Christmas Party at Dugan’s Irish Pub. We had a great crowd and the bar was filled with Christmas cheer until smoke began to fill the entire venue. At approximately 8 p.m. the Chicago Fire Department were called to the bar to put out what was a very smoked filled bar. After waiting outside for nearly an hour, we were told that the bar was closed for the night and we were asked to gather our belongings. There were four small dynamite looking devices found in the men’s bathroom, smoldering in the trash can.

The following evening I received a phone call from Chicago Police Department Bomb and Arson officials. Written on the lid of one of the toliets were: F*CK THE TEA PARTY. (Link.)

Y'know, "fun" little utterances like this.

House Democrats are suddenly -- racist!

Via The Daily Caller:

That’s the only rational conclusion to be derived from their behavior lately.

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f— the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the last two years, it’s that dissenting against Obama is racist. It’s disappointing that these racist Democrats in Congress are so racist, but that’s to be expected from a bunch of racists.

Indeed. Anyone remember Joe Wilson? I could fill the biggest blog post ever with all the instances of MSM idiots and other "progressives" opining on [conservative] opposition to Obama as "racist." But I've yet to hear a conservative/Republican use the F-bomb against the president!

Liberal hate rhetoric

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO): "It really is time for people to take up pitchforks" if GOP gets its way on maintaining Bush tax cuts for everyone.

Considering all the time they devoted to the Tea Party using such colorful metaphors over the past year, I presume we'll see Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Dylan Ratigan screaming and yelling about all the violence such hateful language can lead to ...?

UPDATE: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC's President William Gheen is the subject of a death threat from, among others, the President of Immigration Clearinghouse:

William Gheen appeared on Fox News at 6:15am EST on Tuesday, November 30, 2010. In the interview, Gheen said that the Dream Act Amnesty was a "Political Teddy Bear with a hand grenade in it," and that passage of the Dream Act Amnesty could eventually lead to "millions of innocent American students, workers, and voters being displaced and replaced by illegal aliens."

Mr. Porter Corn, the President of Immigration Clearinghouse, posted the following comments beneath the video accompanied by William Gheen's home address. Corn later removed the comment when ALIPAC notified activists of the threats but screen shots can be seen in the evidence thread provided here.

"Someone should put a grenade up Willy's teddy bear ass and pull the pin." -- posted at 8:30pm EST Nov. 30, 2010 on Youtube by Borderbandit54 aka Mr. Porter Corn of Laredo Texas / President of Immigration Clearinghouse.

I blame liberal hate rhetoric

So much for Jon Stewart's call for more civility in our discourse today, eh?

Jon Stewart's bold statements about creating more of a "Rally for Sanity" sphere for civility in public discourse certainly aren't rubbing off on his employees. Daily Show correspondent John Oliver proclaimed in a "comedy" routine that he hated Denver Broncos quarterback/Christian missionary Tim Tebow so much he'd shoot him before he'd shoot Osama bin Laden. Barry Rothbard at Power Grid posted video of this jaw-dropping attempt at laughs:

I dislike Robert Mugabe. I hate Tim Tebow. If I was in a room with Tim Tebow and Bin Laden and I had a gun with one bullet in it, I’d shoot Bin Laden. I’m not a monster. But if I had two bullets – I’d shoot Tim Tebow first.

How dare you thank God before thanking your offensive line…If I was an offensive lineman for Tim Tebow and I heard him thank god instead of thanking me at the end of the game I’d find myself lining up for the following game and say ‘oh Tim I heard your press conference at the end of the game last week, great to hear Jesus get a shoutout. Wasn’t he fantastic for us? Wasn’t God great, especially in that fourth quarter?

Folks, you must understand that "progressives" do not really want more civility in everyday political discourse. For them, "civility" means "agreeing with them." If you do not agree with them, then there is no such thing as civility. Period. (Locally, just take a gander at the main "progressives" that infest one of my favorite stop-over blogs.)

So, do not believe your local "progressive" when he makes such declarations. At least not at first. Because chances are he in no way means it.

Today in "Imagine if a Republican said it"

Recently defeated Democrat PA Congressman Paul Kanjorski on newly elected Florida Governor Rick Scott:

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him [sic] and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

It goes without saying that if Kanjorski had an "R" after his name, the MSNBC, CNN and other MS< talking heads would be apoplectic over his "hate rhetoric." And why is it that liberals/Democrats are SO insistent on granting murderous terrorists habeas corpus rights, the right to a civilian jury trial, and other legal safeguards enjoyed by your average American citizen (who don't wantonly kill people), yet Republican politicians aren't permitted to utilize same?

Hey!

Remember all those breathless, sanctimonious screams by the MSM during the heyday of the Tea Parties about "inciting violence" yada yada yada? Check out what happened on MSNBC's "Dylan Ratigan Show" yesterday afternoon:

Yep, that's radical cartoonist Ted Rall who's arguing the case for violent overthrow of government.

Quoting John Locke, Rall argues that “the people have an obligation to revolt,” and that “nothing will radicalize the American citizen more than being thrown out of their home by a bank.” Citing frustration with both parties, who he called “in bed with the duopoly,” Rall also noted that “the American left has been very peaceful since the early ’70s… and where has it gotten us?”

Ratigan did not seem particularly flustered by the proposition, though he did ask if Rall saw any alternatives, especially peaceful political dissent, or what he called “European semi-violent revolt.” “If you could get everybody to do it,” Rall responded, “it could work, but you can’t even get everyone to stop littering.”

So yes, the [clip above] is a discussion on cable news over the various merits of violent left-wing overthrow of the American government – signed, sealed, and delivered with a cherry on top for those on the right looking for evidence to counter the claim that it’s their side that’s doing the fearmongering.

Check out the update at the bottom of this post for more enlightening tidbits of Rall's "Anti-American Manifesto."

Laugher of the Day: Hateful scumbag complains about "hatred"

The guy who once advocated that all Republicans be rounded up and shot, Delaware Douche, now has this "lovely" little post up.

And you know what's scary and laughable at the same time? Chris Coons and other state politicians actually talk to these a**holes.

They can gloat all they want about the political state of the state; however, one small, short glance around the nation kicks them right in the groin. (I'd say "balls" if they actually had any.)

See this, John Kerry?

Via Ace: John "I Served in Vietnam" Kerry thinks you're stupid:

Yes, the commonwealth’s senior senator engaged in what can only be described as a 40-minute whine-fest at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce appearance yesterday, customizing congressional Democrats’ pre-election talking points for a local audience.

He complained at length that his party isn’t getting the credit it deserves for rescuing the economy - indeed the very nation - ever since a “pale and agitated” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came to Democrats begging for a Wall Street bailout in the fall of 2008.

Heck, why talk about practical realities when you can point your finger at (sigh) Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh?

“It’s absurd. We’ve lost our minds,” Kerry said. “We’re in a period of know-nothingism in the country, where truth and science and facts don’t weigh in. It’s all short-order, lowest common denominator, cheap-seat politics.”

Sort of like "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty," maybe?

Good thing this gold-digger wasn't up for re-election next week.

Confirmed: Those who don't agree with Obama are his "enemies"

Kathryn Jean Lopez picks up on it via a Messiah speech noted in The Hill:

Latino voters, the president said, would have an opportunity to send a message to Republicans, who Obama accused of “politicizing” immigration reform and the border security debate. Obama said “pressure has to be put on the Republican Party” if immigration reform is to become a reality.

“And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder — and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2,” he said.

I thought the president was supposed to serve all the people ... ?

Hans Bader e-mails ...

Obama and his allies dishonor our troops, and seek to disenfranchise them.

Democratic officials in Illinois officials missed the deadline to mail ballots to our troops overseas, but they hand-delivered ballots to inmates, without even waiting for inmates to apply. Perhaps this discrimination can be explained by the fact that inmates vote mostly for Democrats, while soldiers vote predominantly for Republicans.

There are federal laws requiring states to send ballots in a timely fashion to troops overseas, but the Obama Administration is not enforcing them, as part of its ongoing politicization of the Justice Department (such as rubberstamping unconstitutional legislative proposals, and downplaying voter intimidation by liberal activists, while investigating Tea Party pollwatchers who uncovered rampant voter registration fraud in Houston).

Meanwhile, liberal Virginia Congressman Jim Moran has dismissed his opponent, a retired Colonel who served in the military with distinction for 24 years, saying that he had not “served or performed in any kind of public service,” and had simply “taken a government check.” (Moran, a career politician, has collected a government paycheck for many decades, first as a state official, and then, for the last 28 years, as a Congressman).

More here.

Cry me a river

You've probably seen coverage of "The View's" Joy Behar and Rah-Rah Rabinowitz (aka Whoopi Goldberg) walking off the set of the show in protest of Bill O'Reilly's pointing out that it was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11. If not, here it is:

Is there a bigger self-righteous sanctimonious bit** than Joy Behar? She chats with 9/11 Truther idiot Jesse Ventura about O'Reilly's "hate speech," but let's take a gander at some of her own:

• She called Michelle Bachmann "anti-kid":

  Don’t you think it shows their true colors – these mama grizzlies so-called? I mean she is against a federal program to help poor kids get health insurance, Michele Bachmann. She is no mama grizzly. She is against children. Who is she fooling?

  Yeah, this "anti-child" representative has five children of her own and 23 foster children. How many kids does Behar have? (And if she has kids, who was drunk enough to actually make it with her??)

• For someone apparently so upset about Bill O'Reilly supposedly painting ALL Muslims with the "terrorist" brush, why does Behar likewise paint ALL Tea Partiers as "racists?"

• Or, how about painting the entire GOP as "racist" by suggesting that Nancy Pelosi's daughter's film about the homeless include "just white people"

  because maybe you felt that that would make more of an impact on Republican congressmen and people who tend to, you know, veto any kind of help for people on the, you know, because the, oh, you know what I`m saying.

• "Pro-children" Behar said that "comedian" Kathy Griffin's disgusting labeling of MA Senator Scott Brown's daughters as "prostitutes" was "just a joke."

• Behar suggested Catholic saints were "mentally ill."

• Behar "compared the prayers of former President George W. Bush to a terrorist's Muslim prayers to Allah."

• Behar stated that prayer "takes the place of thinking."

• Behar compared supporters of the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law to Nazis.

The examples of virtually endless. So, if I was O'Reilly, I would've told Behar, "Stay off-stage you sanctimonious hypocrite. And how is it that you have your own show again? What exactly is your claim to fame??"

Seriously. Is this woman supposed to be a comedian? Since when?

A word from the Clueless Left

Via the Newsbusters tip line (which goes out to many contributors, not just me):

95 % of all mainstream media is conservatively biased or is an outright platform for the republican [sic] party. How can you pretend that it is any thing [sic] other. [sic] Your lies are treasonous!

So much (again) for that 'ol "dissent is patriotic," eh?

A word from the Angry Left

Via the Newsbusters tip line (which goes out to many contributors, not just me):

I'll give you a story -- "NewsBusters - a racist organization!" How dare you portray our president in this fashion. You bastards! No wonder your motyher [sic] was seen on my street selling her old ass to drunk bikers for 50 cents an hour. You guys are over the top! You support a person who nearly destroyed our country and will do anything to defame a man who's much smarter, by far, than George Bush who never did anything himself. If I had a father who was rich, I could go to Yale and Harvard too. Get it right motherfuckers ... you keep pushing, and you'll find yourselves in a ditch!

Ah yes. Just like Delaware's own "Delaware Douche," if you disagree with or dislike what others say, you must kill them!

How 'bout those "tolerant" and "empathetic" progressives, eh?

Black-white relations poorer now than year ago

Via Rasmussen:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 36% of voters now say relations between blacks and whites are getting better. That’s down from 62% in July of last year at the height of the controversy involving a black Harvard professor and a white policeman. That number had fallen only slightly to 55% in April of this year.

Twenty-seven percent (27%) now say black-white relations are getting worse, up 10 points from July 2009, while 33% think they’re staying about the same. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

African-Americans are much more pessimistic than whites. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of whites think black-white race relations are getting better, but just 13% of blacks agree.

Hmm. Now why would this be? The article offers a suggestion:

Confidence in the nation’s course among African-Americans soared after Barack Obama’s election. But then several prominent Democrats, perhaps most notably former President Jimmy Carter, suggested that opposition to the president’s health care plan was motivated in part by racism. Only 12% of all voters agreed in September of last year, but among blacks, 27% felt that way and 48% were undecided.

But of course! That's par for the course with Democrats. Can't win a debate on the merits, pull out the 'ol you-know-what card. The Obama campaign in 2008 perfected it, even using it against the first "black" president, Bill Clinton. Oh, and there's also the testimony that the Obama Justice Dept. refuses to prosecute voting rights cases if the plaintiff is white. Or that the Arizona immigration law is "racist." Etc. Etc. Etc.

Related: Oklahoma City students learn about "old, dead white men" using hip hop and rap. A sample:

One particularly controversial song entitled "Old Dead White Men," describes President James Monroe's presidential term by saying: "White men getting richer than Enron. They stepping on Indians, women and blacks. Era of Good Feeling doesn't come with the facts."

"Andrew Jackson thinks he's a tough guy. Killing more Indians than there are stars in the sky. Evil wars of Florida killing the Seminoles. Saying hello, putting Creek in the hell holes. Like Adolf Hitler he had the final solution. 'No, Indians, I don't want you to live here anymore."

Lovely, eh?

Semi-related: Black Judge Rejects Plea Deal for "White Boy."

And now, a fisking

It's been a while but it's time for a Fisking:

Castle Should Run

Now I’m all for people speaking their mind.

So far so good. He's at odds with the partisans who want everyone to shut up (execpt themselves of course)

I’m all for supporting the majority.

Be wary of the majority. Slavery was once the opinion of the majority. Principles and majority opinion are frequently at odds.

And like the founding fathers, I have implicit faith in the ability of the people to sort out our problems and separate wheat from the chaff… if not the first time, then definitely over time.

Why then do you align yourself to a party that is so bent on control?

Most ordinary people I know have far more wisdom than any leader I’ve had the privilege to share conversation with.

There may be hope yet.

Therefore I believe in the sanctity of the people’s choice. If the people voted him in, he’s there for a reason.

Ah but as we'll see that sanctity only extends to the preferred candidate. If he loses that sanctity goes out the window.

But that’s only if the election was fair. If someone padded the ballot box, or switched vote totals, than obviously this premise wouldn’t apply for the very reason that the choice of the people was not the person who was actually representing them.

Ah, so we have a suggestion that the election was not fair. That there was some fraud. It couldn't be otherwise. Not possible.

Mike was bushwhacked, sort of like the US was at Pearl Harbor or on 09/11

And we're off the cliff. Comparing the acts of war and terrorism that murdered Americans to a 40 year politician losing his job is simply beyond the pale.

…Reading his interview yesterday in the News Journal, one gets a sense that perhaps this was not a fair fight….

What does that mean? How was it "unfair"? Unfair is one of liberalisms favorite words because it's a slippery concept. Ask a liberal to define fairness and you'll never get a straight answer.

By election laws it was, and we all have to accept the primary results. However, if Mike doesn’t run as a write-in, he is putting himself in the same position as if the United States did nothing after Pearl Harbor or 9/11….

Now that alleged sanctity of the people's choice is now equated to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Got that Delaware? You are either Imperial Japanese Kamikazi pilots or Islamic Terrorists, take your pick.

And with Mike, it is not about winning, although winning would be nice.

Completely wrong. It's ALL ABOUT winning. That is it. Nothing else matters. The only thing Mike Castle has never waivered on is his firm belief that Mike Castle needs to be in office.

It would be about whether good or evil triumphed.

Once again, either Christine O'Donnell is evil or the sanctity of the people's choice is evil. O'Donnell is not merely wrong, no that's not enough. She is evil. By extention the people of Delaware are fans of evil since they voted for her.

Polls say it’s Mike’s race to lose.

It appears he's already lost by not making it on to the ballot. I have yet to see a poll that claims Mike Castle can win as a write in. The only reason he'd do that is to hurt O'Donnell.

He actually has enough money to send every voter a personal card telling them exactly how much he’s done for them,

Which is not likely to impress too many people.

how that will soon change for the worse,

What with the RINO out and an actual Republican in.

and explain how to write in his name and send the evil perpetrators back to their cardboard boxes.

There's that word again. EVIL. The "perpatrators" are the voters of Delaware.

If Mike doesn’t do this…. exactly then, what is he saying to future generations of Americans? ?

Oh, maybe that nobody should be in political offices for 40 years? That you should actually respect the will of the voters? That the polical process actually works? That new people in goverment is a good idea? Heaven forfend?

That we should just give up when hit from behind with a baseball bat?

Voting is now equivalent to felony assault. Well, at least it's no longer terrorist murder so I guess that's progress.

That it’s the American way to lay down and bend over?

How do you bend over when you're already laying down?

That being a man, is knowing when to run away and hide?

Or being a man means knowing how to lose gracefully?

That brutality and tastelessness are the new American Way?

Voting is downgraded again to brutal and tasteless. If this goes on any longer we may be back into the positive.

That perhaps Christine was right?

Careful, you're straying close to the truth. Quick, say something absurd and get back on track!

Castle has no man pants on?

He never did. He's milquetoast in a rumpled suit.

That the wishes of Delawareans don’t matter; we’ll stop immediately and do what Californians tell us?

Um...what? Are Californians now driving to Delaware to vote in our primaries? Is it some sort of mind beams that zombify Delawareans? Frankly I can't believe I've found a liberal who doesn't want California to tell us what to do.

That how we brush off defeat is a better mark of character, than coming back strong and punishing the evil that befell us?

More evil. I missed the step where the sanctity of the people's choice morphed into evil. I guess it's only evil when they don't vote for RINO's and Democrats.

And sentences keep coming one after another… the list keeps going on…

I know it's weird, right?

But if I were in Mike Castles shoes, and if it were me looking over the entire scene before me… I would have no choice but to say I’m in… Oh yes, I would wait till the last minute of September 30th to do so… and I would create a smoke cloud beforehand by pretending to roll over and let bygones be bygones… …. …. and from somewhere out of the fog, then overwhelmingly, I’d strike.

I think someone needs to look up the definition of "sanctity".

I wouldn’t hold back.. It’d be my last race, it would be the one I pulled all my stops for. Every person I’d ever helped would get a personal appeal from me. Unconditional Surrender would be our rallying cry, just like for the troops of WWII… Our goal would be not just to win, but destroy the O’Tea Party forever.

Unconditional Surrender is Obama's foreign policy. I don't think he'd appreciate Castle using it for his campaign. Castle misunderestimated O'Donnell. Either way, this is his last race. Write in or not, he's done and he knows it. Any campaign now is scorched earth. A more fitting slogan I'd say.

Ok, Hannity O’Tea Partiers: so you were secretly prepared and yes, you overran Poland, and yes, you then went on to incorporate the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway, and even surprised France pushing their ally Britain into the water… But this time, you went too far.. You’ve taken on the United States. You’ve pissed off someone five times your size. We will Normandize you, Elbetize you, Dresdenize you, give you a Kolnectomy, Rhineantipuovertize you, Remagenisque you, and even liposuctionize your Battle of the Bulge. We will Pattontize you, Bradleydice you, and Marshall you into a corner from where you can’t maneuver.. We will take average civilians and turn them into a fighting force the world has never seen…

So now Americans are Nazis. Godwin's law violation. Why are Tea Partiers not "average civilians"?

We will do so for the honor of America.

Translation: the only way to honor America is to firebomb our fellow Americans who want to vote. For the wrong people.

What kind of an America? An America where truth wins out, where decency prevails, where honesty and hard work eventually win out over trickery, skulduggery, and political assassination.

Now voting is "trickery, skulduggery and political assassination".

You wanted to play dirty?

The MSM is calling O'Donnell a self confessed whore and you're saying they're playing dirty?

We’ll show you how it’s done

Of that I have no doubt. See; Maher, Bill; Axelrod, David et al.

… In doing so we will show the world that modernism prevails

Threats of violence and fighting dirty is modernism?

, that decent people still run America.

You just told me I'm a Nazi, you're going to firebomb me and fight dirty and you call yourself decent?

that the “Boehner Bullshit” is just that.

See Boehner has nothing to do with the Tea Party. I think he's smart enough to know that he either needs to get on that bandwagon or it's going to run him over but that's about it.

It’s time to show the world what we’ve known all along.. That in America, it’s the people who run politics..Not the Politics who run the people…..

OK you started off by telling me that the people should choose. Then you said that you respect that choice. Unless they choose O'Donnell over Castle in which case they are terrorist murders. And Nazis. And that the good, decent people will fight them. Dirty. And firebomb them with no quarter until they are destroyed.

I’d tell every Delawarean… Do yourself a favor… Turn off your TV’s.. You got a question? Call me or my staff directly! We’ll talk to you… try talking back to their commercials! Where will that get you?

Um...people don't call their politicans because they know they're going to get a line of bullshit regardless of party. Who exactly is talking back to commercials?

That stuff they’re airing? That’s not Delaware talking, That’s California money talking

Again, hatin' on California. Weird for a liberal. If I say something about Delaware that is true and I'm in California at the time does that mean it's no longer true? Does this rule apply to Mike Castle? How can he work in DC if truth about Delaware is confined to Delaware.

… That’s rich bitch snitch drug money being laundried to throw a Senate seat into supporting their snatching up of all your money

I was afraid we weren't going to get slandered with drug lord references but Kavips pulls it out at the last minute. Nice save. About the money: 1. I don't have any more money and neither do you. Obama spent it all on the stimulus that didn't work. And my kids money. And their kids' money. 2. The entire point of the Tea Party is to not take your money. They want you to keep your money so Washington has to do without and you don't.

… You want to keep some of your money? Call me. Call my staff… That’s Delaware talking.

Such a statement coming from anyone supporting either the stimulus or the health care plan is delusional.

Do you want reason to take on ins’hannity?

I'm usually a fan of puns but this is bad. Hannity isn't a Tea Party guy. He's a conservative.

Well, it’s on. Support me. You can’t let the devil win… “

Now O'Donnell or the Tea Party or the people of Delaware are the devil.

Well anyway, if I were Castle, that’s exactly what I’d do. And I would do it selflessly, not to win, but to give Delawarean another alternative between a Democrat and our equivalent of the brown shirts of the Nazi Party.

Wow. Harsh criticism for Democrats. He wants an alternative to Democrats! Oh, and you're still a Nazi.

Yes, if there is still good left in America, then Castle needs to run.
If the doesn’t, then the America that came back after Pearl Harbor……. is gone

In case you didn't get the first 55 examples. Either we vote for Castle or we're Nazi terrorist evil drug lord devils from California or something.

Yeah -- it'll be a sure hit

Via Big Hollywood: The "Matrix" trilogy creators' new film features a gay American soldier who falls for an Iraqi soldier who then both conspire to assassinate President Bush.

I'm sure the public will be knocking down the cinema doors to see this one.

"Moderates"

Breaking: Close associate of Imam Rauf is a 9/11 Truther.

A founding member of an organization run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the driving force behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero, claims that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" and that Muslims have been made scapegoats, The Post has learned.

Faiz Khan -- who has preached at least twice at the former Burlington Coat Factory building, the site of the proposed mosque -- was for years Rauf's partner in the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims, which is dedicated to promoting a better understanding of Islam.

Khan also serves on the advisory board of Muslims for 9/11 Truth and is a founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, known as MUJCA.

On MUJCA's Web site, Khan wrote that "the inescapable fact [is] that 9/11 was an inside job."

"The prime factor for the success of the criminal mission known as 9/11 did not come from the quarter known as 'militant Islam,' although the phenomenon known as 'militant Islamic networks' may have played a partial role, or even a less than partial role -- perhaps the role of patsy and scapegoat," he wrote in documents uncovered by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Khan was listed as one of three directors of the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims in its 1997 incorporation papers, when it went by the name of the American Sufi Muslim Association.

But just remember -- Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a "moderate" and the proposed community center/mosque is to be a "monument to peace."

Speaking of idiots ...

The LGOMB's "pandora" posts about a "senior GOP official" in Delaware receiving an e-mailed death threat. To which, in the comments, fellow LGOMB member "liberal geek" writes,

I wish that I were surprised, but I’m sure that it’s just a lone wolf or that the tree of liberty needs watering or something…

I wonder how many people have to die for Christine O’Donnell to be a Senator.

Now, keep in mind that these pathetic creatures knowingly and willingly blog with a guy who wrote this.

Fun With Liberals

The LGOMB never fails to disappoint, and the idiot "pandora" is back at it again, trying to associate isolated nutjobs any way she can to conservatives and the GOP -- even when it directly contradicts their own (silly) logic.

“Pastor” Jones is only a symptom of the real problem:

Speaking just now on MSNBC James Zogby made a very good point — and pressed Andrea Mitchell on it. His point was that sure, this Pastor Jones fool is one guy, who’s managed to get worldwide attention for his stunt. But you cannot separate him, as I noted below, from the whole climate of hate speech and anti-Muslim agitation from the Newt Gingriches and the Sarah Palins and the rest of them.

At that point, Mitchell jumped in and said, wait, Palin said she disagrees with the Koran burning. To which Zogby replied, something to the effect of ‘C’mon’. And that’s just the right reply.

Thaaaaaat's right -- only liberals are able to make use of their First Amendment rights (because, after all, they are rights) without being accused of fostering a "climate of hate" and hence leading to some lone nut doing something stupid. Contrariwise, no one should attempt to equate progressive speech with a guy who straps explosives to himself in an attempt to blow up a cable network now, right?

This nut pastor, Jones, plans to merely burn a book. Burning the American flag is protected speech; so what's the big deal over burning a book? pandora and the rest of the LGOMB would be screaming at the top of their lungs if the Right attempted to thwart someone buring our flag. But burning our Old Glory doesn't offend "progressive" sensibilities, though. Constitutional rights and protections are only worth preserving for those "worthy" of having them.

UPDATE: Good "progressives" stick together. CNN's Rick Sanchez asks former NY governor Rick Pataki "Do you feel in any way that some of this backlash...led by some fine gentlemen like yourself...has kind of paved the way for that controversy, and if so, do you feel guilty at all?"

Arianna Huffington, so similar to the LGOMB's Jason "Trust Fund" Scott in both politics and background, says that Ground Zero mosque supporters are like the Koran-burning pastor.

On the "Today" show today, a Council on American-Islamic Relations representative equated the GZ mosque protest to internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II and even slavery.

CBS's Harry Smith followed suit with the narrative as well.

I'll say it again: And people wonder why so many Americans are royally fed up?

Now this is "tolerance!"

Loyal Colossus reader Fred Gregory informs us of what religious "tolerance" according to North Carolina liberals is like. Via the Spag Report:

Greensboro Rabbi Fred Guttman called into the Brad and Britt Show this morning and analogized that the Koran burning preacher might be a fair target to be shot for the greater good. He also suggested that the preacher be sued to prevent the Koran burning - something that would violate the First Amendment. Host Brad Krantz who has been among the liberal crowd attacking opponents of the mosque at Ground Zero (often citing the First Amendment) let Guttman's comments pass without challenge.

On [his] blog, Guttman again invoked the Jewish value of Pikuach Nefesh which means "the greater good". This was the same value Guttman raised on the Brad and Britt Show when he argued that sometimes it is necessary to take a life to preserve more lives- the "greater good". He used a war time analogy on the Brad & Britt Show about how shooting someone could be justified for the "greater good". He then stated something to the effect of "I'm not saying this pastor should be shot...maybe he should be".

The pastor should be shot for the "greater good," huh? Gee, that sounds AWFULLY familiar now, doesn't it?

Just yet another little nugget of proof that demonstrates that the REAL intolerant, insensitive haters are "progressives" ... so much so that they wanna kill you for disagreeing with them.

I blame the hate rhetoric ...

... generated by hate sites like this for this guy's actions:

A gunman with a possible explosive device strapped to himself entered the Discovery Communications building in Silver Spring, Md., Wednesday afternoon and was holding a “small number” of hostages, police said.

James Jae Lee appears to have posted environmental and population-control demands online, saying humans are ruining the planet and that Discovery should develop programs to sound the alarm.

“I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it,” the alleged manifesto reads, adding: "Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans.”

In addition, I blame the heated rhetoric from outlets like MSNBC, the big three networks, and the Obama administration.

I blame the hate rhetoric generated ...

... by hate sites like this.

Bishop shot and killed at Mormon church.

The Glenn Beck/Ground Zero mosque hypocrisy rocks on

Just remember that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is lauded by "progressives" and the MSM (one and the same, really) as a "moderate;" however, one would think Glenn Beck is the devil incarnate based on the reporting of his Washington DC rally this past weekend. We've already shown you the preposterous double standard in the MSM regarding the GZ mosque and Beck, and it got worse the past few days.

First, there's the pathetic Howie Dean calling Beck a "racist" (surprise!) and a "hate monger" (surprise!), and those who attended his rally "lost souls."

You know, I think, it was kind of a Tea Party type of event. You know, 300,000 people is a lot of people to have on the Washington Mall, but in terms of who, how many people vote, it's not a very big crowd. I don't know what, I think that Glenn Beck has got a few things the matter with him, up here, up in the head there. So I just don't know what to make of it. I mean, it's a lot of people.

What I see is, these folks are kind of, and I don't mean this in a mean kind of way, but they're a little like lost souls in the sense that they really do, they're at sea, the country's changed a lot, they don't, they're in the middle of a horrible economic downturn which has probably affected a lot of them personally. So they follow this guy who is like Father Coughlin from the 1930s. He's a racist, he's a hate-monger.

Dean followed on the aptly named Charles Blow who had earlier said,

Well Beck is an incredibly divisive figure, and no amount of him wrapping himself in the flag and hiding behind a cross is going to scrub his history of the things he has said and done. And he is part of what I see as a rhetorical assassination of a good man (Barack Obama).

Again, I'll ask: Who is more "moderate": Imam Rauf or Glenn Beck?

Elsewhere, the WaPo thinks Beck is out of line for criticizing Obama's version of Christianity. (Jeremiah Wright, anybody? Not the WaPo.)

Meawhile, the "Rev" Al Sharpton said regarding Beck's rally that "We're not giving them this day. This is our day, and we ain't giving it away." Now, just imagine how the MSM would react if that was a conservative Republican saying that about Ground Zero (just replace "day" with "site").

Then, ABC's Ron Claiborne pressed Dr. Alveda King, niece of MLK who attended Beck's rally, to answer the charge that "Beck's rally is an affront to what the Civil Rights Movement stood for." How often has the MSM pressed Imam Rauf and other GZ mosque proponents similarly?

Perhaps the "best" instance of moonbat hilarity was offered up by "progressive" pundit Bill Press who compared Glenn Beck to al Qaeda.

CBS told black attendees of Beck's rally that [they were] "noticing that there aren't a lot of minorities here today."

And, lastly, of course the MSM penchant for selective labeling came into play as the big three networks dubbed Beck a "controversial conservative," while Al Sharpton was merely a "civil rights leader." Yeah -- nothing at all remotely controversial about Sharpton, eh?

35% of Democrats share Uncle Fidel's conspiracy

35% of Democrats think George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks (61% say he knew in advance or "aren't sure"). Thus, these nimrods have one big thing in common with aging dictator Fidel Castro:

FORMER Cuban president Fidel Castro said Osama bin Laden was in the pay of the CIA and was summoned up whenever George W. Bush needed to scare the world.

"Any time Bush would stir up fear and make a big speech, bin Laden would appear threatening people with a story about what he was going to do," Castro told Sky News.

"Bush never lacked for bin Laden's support. He was a subordinate."

Can we expect the MSM to lecture him on "tolerance?"

From ABC News via The Corner:

The Rev. Walter Fauntroy, the non-voting delegate who represented the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991, called on African-Americans to organize a “new coalition of conscience” to rebut the rally scheduled for Saturday at the Lincoln Memorial featuring Fox News pundit Glenn Beck and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

“We are going to take on the barbarism of war, the decadence of racism, and the scourge of poverty, that the Ku Klux — I meant to say the Tea Party,” Fauntroy told a news conference today at the National Press Club. “You all forgive me, but I — you have to use them interchangeably.”

Fauntroy attempted to explain the comparison to white supremacists by saying that organizers behind the “Restoring Honor” rally are the same people who cut audio cables from a sound system the night before the historic March on Washington and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial.

“The same people who cut the cables on the night before the march, that we paid $66,000 for a sound system, they cut it,” Fauntroy said. “Now from Fox News and elsewhere, they are seeking to turn the world back.”

Will there be constant MSM sermons on the right to [Glenn Beck's] free speech, and how Fauntroy is a "bigot" and "intolerant?" Of course not. Yet dolts like the good reverend and the other elitist boneheads will keep up this disparaging garbage all the way until November -- when they'll get their collective asses kicked by folks like those in the Tea Party who've had it up to here with their every belief somehow being labeled as "bigoted," "intolerant" and "racist."

It begins -- again

Unstable Mental State over at the LGOMB: "I hope Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are proud of what they’ve unleased. A man in NYC stabbed a cab driver after asking him if he was a Muslim."

Here we go again. Voicing opposition to the Ground Zero mosque is "violence-provoking." At these these moonbats are consistent in their insanity, right? Remember, to them a conservative merely putting up a sign that says "It's YOUR money" is "racist!" I mean, what's next? Clouds in the sky are "racist" because they're white?

But, alas, as has happened before when these mental pygmies have jumped the gun, it seems this attacker is a mosque supporter!

My suggestion is that the LGOMB change their blog's name to "Delaware Catharsis." 'Cuz they sure make it easy and laughingly fun for us all!

Islamophobia

Jonah Goldberg attempts to ease the hysteria (or, at least inject some common sense) whipped up by the likes of Time magazine regarding the Ground Zero mosque controversy.

According to the FBI, hate crimes against Muslims increased by a staggering 1,600 percent in 2001. That sounds serious! But wait, the increase is a math mirage. There were 28 anti-Islamic incidents in 2000. That number climbed to 481 the year a bunch of Muslim terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on Sept. 11.

Regardless, 2001 was the zenith or, looked at through the prism of our national shame, the nadir of the much-discussed anti-Muslim backlash in the United States — and civil libertarians and Muslim activists insisted it was 1930s Germany all over again. The following year, the number of anti-Islamic hate-crime incidents (overwhelmingly, nonviolent vandalism and nasty words) dropped to 155. In 2003, there were 149 such incidents. And the number has hovered around the mid-100s or lower ever since.

Sure, even one hate crime is too many. But does that sound like an anti-Muslim backlash to you?

No, it doesn't. In fact, it sounds quite remarkable. Radical Islamists turn New York City into chaos killing almost 3,000 people -- and hate crimes against Muslims go down every year -- despite the continuing threat from them?

Goldberg notes that, consistently, anti-Jewish hate crimes outnumber anti-Muslim hate crimes by a ratio of six to one. But no one talks about an "anti-Jewish backlash" in America, nor does Time ask on its cover "Is America Anti-Semitic?"

Obama and Co. automatically proclaim that such orchestrated terrorist attacks are “isolated” events. But when it comes to mainstream Americans, veterans, Obamacare opponents or (shudder) tea partiers, there’s no generalization too broad or too insulting for the Left.

Amen. This is a point I've made a lot recently here and at other blogs. People like our old "pal" Perry and those at the LGOMB have absolutely NO qualms about calling those noted above the ridiculously over-utilized "racist" (among a lot of other epithets). They have absolutely no qualms about using bogus and totally unsubstantiated claims to bolster their "arguments." Just check out what frequent LGOMB commenter "a. price" said over at DE Politics yesterday:

Let’s review what the Teabags DONT consider racist….

Holding all of Islam responsible for 9/11 (btw, way to whine about your Constitutional rights for almost 2 years than INSTANTLY telling a whole group of people they should give up theirs cause it makes you sad.. hypocrites)

Who precisely is holding ALL of Islam responsible for 9/11? Are 70% of Americans "Teabags?" Does this mean that Jews held all Catholics responsible for the crimes at Auschwitz when they expressed displeasure at the nuns who occupied a building there in 1993? Does this mean that Al Sharpton and co. believe that only blacks can take inspiration from Martin Luther King Jr.? *Sigh* Just another progressive strawman.

Having police officers look at a person and decide if they should ask for proof of citizenship

Except, that, NOWHERE in that Arizona immigration law -- currently on hold -- was there such a provision. In FACT, it specifically spelled out that immigration status could ONLY be inquired about in the process of some other law enforcement matter. Another strawman.

Politicians who ignore signs like “Barack the Magic Negro”

Except that that very phrase was created by a LIBERAL writer!

A TV host who thinks that people in Harlem order food like this “HEY M F-ER! BRING ME SOME ICED TEA”

I am assuming this is in reference to Bill O'Reilly's trip to a Harlem restaurant with the Rev. Al Sharpton, and is a textbook example of lifting remarks completely out of context. If anyone with half a brain actually SAW O'Reilly's report/discussion on the matter, it is crystal clear that he was discussing how black America is not just the snippets of rap videos seen on, say, MTV, and that unfortunately many Americans may believe just that. Even NBC's Matt Lauer recognized this.

A radio host who thinks black people should “get over” the N word…. than proceeds to yell it at a black woman 11 times before telling her she shouldnt have married outside of her race.

This refers to the recent situation with now-retired radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Of ALL of "a. price's" gripes only this one has even a hint of merit. What Dr. Laura did was wrong and incredibly insensitive; however, it doesn't make her a racist. Her point in doing what she did was to state that people are too sensitive today, and that blacks themselves use the "N" word fairly gratuitously. I, and others, do not agree, but -- again -- this does not make Schlessinger a "racist."

OK, I just did what I said I wouldn't do, but at least I did it here, on my own terms (and scythes through "a. price's" illiterate taunt).

Goldberg continues, "Here’s a thought: The 70 percent of Americans who oppose what amounts to an Islamic Niketown two blocks from Ground Zero are the real victims of a climate of hate ..." Indeed, from Time magazine to the usual MSM pundits lecturing the masses, these masses are getting fed up. From the 2008 campaign where any criticism of Barack Oama was dubbed "racist," to last year's townhall meetings where constituents were called "Nazis" (and, again, "racists"), to Tea Partiers being labeled (libeled) "racists" and "extremists," to the recent mosque controversy ... the masses will exercise the ultimate power they wield over the Ruling Class nonsense: the vote.

Semi-related: Rhymes With Right points to yet another double standard on "tolerance" and "sensitivity": You can burn a flag or burn a cross … and it is called free speech – but if you plan to burn some Qurans, you need a permit which can be denied by a government official.

Same situation, less tolerance

If you've been paying even a scant bit of attention to the news of late, you'll notice that lefty pundits are busily lecturing us peons on the right of the imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to build a community center/mosque near Ground Zero, and how opponents of the project are (the usual) "intolerant," "racists" and "Islamophobes."

Just check out what's in store for Washington DC on August 28th:

[Glenn] Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally, with former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin among the scheduled speakers, will take place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech there.

He has a right to do this, right? And, those who oppose it must be "bigots," "anti-American" and "haters," right? Let's see:

Still, several civil rights leaders and activists called Beck's comments disingenuous. They cited his record of making what they perceive to be racially insensitive comments.

Hmm. Just as people have cited the imam's record of insensitive comments.

Beck's choice of day and place for the rally "is insulting, is what it is," Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, said in an interview Monday. "August 28 is something special. It is a day that means something in American history because it was the demonstration in the United States in support of civil rights."

Hmm. Just as the location of the Islamic center/mosque near Ground Zero is "insulting?" Like Ground Zero is "something special?" Like Ground Zero is something that "means something in American history?"

Beck's plans are "an effort to embarrass and poke a finger in the eye of the civil rights community because Glenn Beck and his public utterances don't necessarily demonstrate a consistency with the vision of King."

Hmm. Like the imam's plans are "an effort to embarrass and poke a finger in the eye of the American public because the imam and his public utterances don't necessarily demonstrate a consistency with the concept of actual tolerance and goodwill?"

"For Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin to have a march, they have the right to do so. Many of us suspect they are using the symbolism of that day in a way that does not reflect what the day is about," [Al] Sharpton said. "At no point will we interchange. We will not desecrate the march and what King stood for."

Hmm. As many suspect that, despite the tolerance the imam preaches, the community center/mosque "does not reflect" this "tolerance?"

We want no confrontation with Glenn Beck. But we want a confrontation with the ideas he espouses. His ideas seem to be ideas of intolerance.

Hmm. Just as opponents of the GZ mosque want a "confrontation with the ideas/statements" the imam has espoused? Some of those seem to be ideas of intolerance, too.

I wonder why it is that the same lefty pundits who are preaching to us peons about "tolerance" etc. aren't doing that to Sharpton, et. al. in regards to Beck's rally. (No, I'm not really wondering; the answer is blatantly obvious to anyone with even just half a brain hemisphere.) I mean, are Glenn Beck's past statements really "worse" than the imam's?

Of course not.

It's all just another "battle" in the country's culture war. The MSM and the Ruling Class pundits lecture us underlings about what is "right" -- their notion of "right." This means that anything associated with conservatism doesn't fit that notion, despite even public opinion polls which show how out of touch these pundits are (like the 70% of Americans who oppose the GZ mosque).

Don't ask for consistency, folks. All you'll get is outright hypocrisy.

The gift that keeps giving

... for laughs, that is -- and that would be Jason "Trust Fund" Scott over at the LGOMB who helps his fellow faux progressives slip further into insane moonbattery. The issue?

A local state senator, Colin Bonini, is using campaign signs that read "It's YOUR money." According to Trust Fund Scott, these signs are -- wait for it! -- racist (oh, and "un-American"):

The the line: “it’s YOUR money” is pure GOP dog whistle racism and this is how it works.

The whole republican [sic] system is about nursing grievances. It is about division and, ginning up outrage. It is a strategy that is inherently un-American because the whole the point of Democracy [sic] is to come together in goodwill and solve problems. Coming together to solve problems is something we’ve been able to accomplish for two-hundred years.

Blessed with abundant material wealth, we’ve elected governments to plan for the future, deliberate and collectively implement beneficial projects. On the local, state and national level, we have instituted systems which pool our money in order to invest it in schools, infra-structure, research, and all manner of civilization building projects large and small. To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, we all chip in to have a civilized society. It is OUR money.

Republicans like Bonini are more interested in power than that are [sic] in civilization or even democracy. They have taken the cynical, divisive course of painting ALL taxes as theft. For Bonini all taxes are confiscatory. It is not OUR money. It is YOUR money, and that is where the racism comes in.

The Republican gripes and grievances theme is so baked into modern American politics that he does Bonini [sic] does not even need to make the racism explicit. The slogan “It is YOUR money” implies the grievance that all Republican politicians are playing on. It is YOUR money – don’t let THEM spend YOUR money on unworthy back [sic] and brown people. (Ronald Reagan, may you rot in hell for what you’ve wrought.)

You really can't stretch reality (and credibility) more than that, folks. There may not be a better example of why this cadre is called The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers (LGOMB). Really. I mean, c'mon -- why not just invent crap out of thin air if you're going to post insane garbage like this?

It must be just another side effect of Scott having been handed everything to him in life, so outright boredom probably plays a role. But I'm still betting some mental deficiency is the bigger factor.

Don't dare discuss the birthright citizenship clause!

Mark Krikorian notes how crazy the Left is getting over the mere discussion of ending (or revising) the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provision. Here's Ali Noorani, head of the National Immigration Forum: “It puts the United States of America on the brink of legalizing apartheid.”

Except that, South Africa doesn't allow birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, which makes it part of the very large majority 84% of the planet's nations that doesn't allow such! So ... S.A. is still practicing apartheid? Tell that to Nelson Mandela.

Next is Subhash Kateel, "a community organizer with the Florida Immigrant Coalition in Miami”: “The discussion of taking away citizenship is unconstitutional, un-American and flat-out racist.”

First, ex post facto laws are what's unconstitutional, so any amendment that modifies the 14th Amendment couldn't "take away" anyone's current citizenship. Second, the latter part of the statement is as asinine as that which the LGOMB's Delaware Dunce said back on August 3rd -- that those who wish to change the birthright provision are "anti-constitutional conservatives. Or unconstitutional conservatives." How can changing a provision in an amendment -- via another amendment -- be "unconstitutional"?? I mean, hello??

As for the "racist" complaint -- YAAAAWWN.

UPDATE: Hey look! Harry Reid himself once supported modifying the birthright provision -- back in 1993!

Local "progressive" empathy on display

Regarding the death of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.

Here's perpetual local hatemonger dimwitty:

anyone know whose plane he was riding in? I think it was a corporate jet for someone. How fitting I guess (Link)

I saw someone at another site say he wouldn’t have died if he had been in jail…sorta true. But he also wouldn’t have died if he hadn’t sold his soul to corporate interests and thought that he deserved to live like a king. I’ll be the first to say it…I could care less about him and could care less that he’s gone. He died riding a corporate jet…irony at it’s best. (Link)

we all mourn in different ways I guess. Me…I mourn for those I feel are worthy of it. The rest, especially the ones that helped wreck my country…not so much (Link)

Then there's delacrat:

If you want to mourn, be “a bit respectful” or acknowledge your “condolences to the family” of a right-wing republican crook, there are crooked, right-wing republican websites that are more appropriate for such sentiments. (Link)

And do you really think his family gives a f___ about your condolences? (Link)

And finally, anonone:

I’ll care as much about Stevens as he did about all the families and children he killed in the needless and stupid wars that he supported. May he rest in anguish. (Link)

Kudos to those over there (like MJ, notably) who called out these putzes on their comments.

Today's instance of "Imagine if a Republican said it"

Our esteemed Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid:

It's official: Hugo Chávez really is a lunatic

From exhuming the body of the revolutionary Simón Bolívar, to doubting Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11, to claiming the American moon landing was a hoax -- this is the cretin who is decimating the country of some of the nicest and most personable people on Earth.

(h/t to Colossus reader Soapfiction!)

Still more predictable local idiocy from the wisher of death upon Republicans

That "guy" who has wished that all Republicans be rounded up and shot now treats us all to his legal skills (hard to believe this doofus is an attorney) with the post Constitutional Conservatives. After spending numerous paragraphs falsely claiming that the GOP wants to "repeal the 14th Amendment," Delaware Dunce finally gets down to business: the issue of potentially changing the birthright provision to the Constitution which is located in the 14th Amendment. Oh, and of course, DD throws around the word "bigotry" a lot, too. *Sigh*

Let's dissect this nonsense, shall we?

You are anti-constitutional conservatives. Or unconstitutional conservatives. Which ever works for you. Got that?

This non-sensical quote comes towards the end of DD's post. Now remember, this "guy's" a lawyer, and he is claiming that investigating an amendment to the Constitution -- clearly provided for IN the Constitution -- is "anti-constitutional!" You can't make this stuff up. This sort of logic means that granting the franchise to blacks and women is "anti-constitutional," not to mention eradicating the poll tax and implementing an income tax. You follow my point? And I don't mean the point on DD's head.

This clause was historically important in Constitutional history, as it explicitly overturned the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, a case that conservatives use as a dog whistle code word, most memorably George W. Bush in the 2000 debates, concerning abortion. That decision had ruled that blacks could not be citizens of the United States. How that relates to abortion I cannot fathom, but anti-choicers love to equate abortion and slavery.

You can't fathom it because, simply, you're an idiot.

Dred Scott ruled that slaves were property -- therefore not legally human beings -- and THAT is what George Bush (and other pro-lifers) argue when they bring up that "dog whistle code word" with regards to abortion. So, what is your view, DD -- are black people "property" or "human beings?" And then, is a 29-week old fetus "property" ... or a "human being?" Careful now ... do you want to make yourself out to be a preposterous moral relativist?

Now we really get silly:

While we are at it, can we strike redheads from being citizens? How about short people? How about people who disagree with our political views? How about a racial minority? Indeed, since this very important first sentence overturned Dredd [sic] Scott, repealing the Amendment to strike this first sentence automatically means Dredd Scott is now good law, which of course means that blacks are no longer citizens of the United States.

This debate over who is a citizen is absurd. Indeed, for certain conservatives, it is contradictory, for they were all hot and bothered just a short while ago about President Obama being BORN IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!! And now, all of a sudden, being born in this country is of no importance?

1) No one -- again -- is talking about repealing the 14th Amendment. Delaware Dunce is merely practicing what his fellow rabid moonbat "progressives" do ad nauseum, and that is repeat a falsehood again, and again, and again until people begin accepting it as fact. (See: racial epithets hurled by Tea Partiers to members of the Congressional Black Caucus; that the Tea Party is incorrigibly racist; that Fox News is responsible for Shirley Sherrod being fired from her job; Etc.)

2) Since the federal government continually refuses to its job in terms of illegal immigration, why is examining a possible repeal of the birthright provision -- a significant factor in illegal immigration -- a bad thing? After all, the United States is only one country out of a "whopping" 16% on the entire planet that allows birthright citizenship! And not a single European country -- y'know, those nations that "progressives" admire so much -- is one of that 16%.

And just ignore Dunce's ridiculous "But can short people be citizens?" crap. That's just pure stupidity attempting to masquerade as "thought." The most obvious answer to a possible amendment to change the 14th would be to allow birthright citizenship only to citizens and legal residents. And it would most assuredly take an amendment to make this change, not, as some conservatives argue, that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” provision of the 14th allows Congress to merely pass a law changing the birthright clause. That, because as an intelligent attorney notes,

... is basically the conservative equivalent of liberals arguing that “well-regulated militia” means “kindly ignore the following clause in its entirety” and “freedom of the press” means “let’s prohibit all corporations that don’t own newspapers from expressing political views at any time when voters are in any danger of acting on those views.”

And the inimitable Xrlq then adds to my own argument:

Not all bad ideas are unconstitutional, and not all good ideas are constitutional. A ban on anchor babies is a good idea, but it’s unconstitutional. So let’s amend the Constitution to fix that ...

How 'bout that? A lawyer that makes perfect sense -- one that recognizes the inanity of a fellow lawyer claiming that amending the Constitution is "anti-Constitutional." After all, the proof is right here for all to see.

Al Mascitti: Mr. Contradiction

I used to like listening to WDEL's Al Mascitti. When he started, he was pretty much down the middle, ripping both sides when they needed it (despite his personal liberalism). But now he ... tries too hard to be the yin to conservative [afternoon talk-guy] Rick Jensen's yang. He's forcing it. It doesn't fit him well, in my opinion. I don't know if he (and Jensen) consciously planned this (a morning tit for an afternoon tat) or if Al has done it on his own, but ...

Jensen has always been predictably conservative. Mascitti, on the other hand, wasn't always a knee-jerk lib.

That being said, the problem with becoming a knee-jerk lib is that you start becoming as nutty as you claim the conservative wingnuts are. This morning, on my drive back to north Wilmington from Bear, Al was [once again] discussing the Arizona illegal immigrant law. In the space of 2-3 minutes, he ripped conservatives for "wanting simple solutions to complex problems" ... and then soon after contradicted himself while falling into the typical "progressive" playbook tactic of crying "racism": He said the whole Arizona situation is "simple" -- it's white people blaming brown people for their problems.

Uh, OK -- the situation in Arizona is "complex," but at the same time it's "simple": white people angry at brown people. Check! LOL!

Please call Al's show.* The more other people do the talking, the less of a chance he'll sound silly.

(* No, this isn't a knock at his popularity or his ratings.)

What was that about "being careful?"

Our Wilmington News Journal yesterday: "Racism is too serious a charge for such knee-jerk reaction by the media."

Former Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean on Fox News this morning:

Let's just be blunt about this. I don't think Newt Gingrich is a racist and you're certainly not a racist, but I think Fox News did something that was absolutely racist. They took a, they had an obligation to find out what was really within the clip. They have been pushing a theme of black racism with this phony Black Panther crap and this, this business, and Sotomayor and all this other stuff.

When host Chris Wallace challenged Dean on his assertion that the Breitbart snippet of Shirley Sherrod was run by Fox before she fired by the Obama administration (and indeed, resulted in the firing), the former presidential candidate hemmed and hawed, and then ultimately offered this:

DEAN: Did you play, did Fox News play the clip that turned out to be inaccurate?

WALLACE: After she was fired.

DEAN: Right. I don't think it matters whether it was before or after.

I don't know what's more frightening -- Dean getting cornered and then admitting "it doesn't matter," or thinking the accusations by some former Dept. of Justice officials that the Dept. is litigating in a racialist manner is "phony crap." But hey, after all, Dean is a member of the Ruling Class. His sort of nonsense is to be expected.

Lopsided indignation

Michael C. Moynihan at Reason nails the recent race imbroglios nicely:

But false (or flimsy) accusations of racism abound—they are everywhere one looks—though they rarely provoke the level of outrage seen in the Sherrod affair. This week, in a fit of boredom, I found myself leafing through a deeply silly book by William Kleinknecht, a crime reporter for a newspaper in New Jersey, portentously called The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America. If it wasn’t enough that Reagan betrayed, attacked, humiliated, and sold Main Street to corporations the reader is informed that after the 1980 election the United States was “turned over to...thinly-veiled racists.” Nowhere does Kleinknecht substantiate the charge, but when the accused is Ronald Reagan, why bother?

This whole “debate,” if we can charitably call it that, is a mess of straw men, hypocrisy, stupidity, and reflexive defenses of one’s own tribe. It has nothing to do with fairness, journalistic ethics, or the immorality of dragging the reputations of innocents through the mud in an attempt at scoring political points.

Racism is the most powerful and toxic accusation in American discourse, one that derails careers and destroys futures. Yet despite its toxicity it is also the one that requires the least amount of evidence; the racism, we are told, is institutionalized or subterranean, so trust that it’s being divined in good faith. Well, that won’t do. Because there is no penalty for unfairly calling someone a racist, as David Frum points out—if it sticks, a point for your side; if it doesn’t, who cares?

Indeed, and it "sticks" a helluva lot more often when faux "progressives" do the "sticking." Folks like Olbermann (and practically everyone at MSNBC) spent weeks -- months! -- maligning the Tea Party movement as racist by nitpicking rare tasteless placards; in addition they (and others) constantly repeated the vicious lie that members of the Congressional Black Caucus were victims of racial slurs (see our predictable faux "progressives" locally and the local big papers which just in the past few days showed predictable paroxysms of indignation over the Sherrod affair).

The "bad guy" in the Sherrod matter, Andrew Breitbart, still hasn't gotten a taker for his offered $10,000 for proof that members of the CBC were yelled at by racists -- despite a plethora of cameras filming the protests at the time (including one held by the son of a notorious race hustler).

So, forgive me if I don't shed many tears for Ms. Sherrod's predicament. I've already opined what was done to her was wrong and that she should get her job back. But it'll be a very cold day in Hades if we ever see folks like Olbermann apologize, or the way-moonbatty LGOMB.

UPDATE: A lot more here.

JournoList merely a right-wing "witch hunt" by conservatives

... that, according to our old friend Perry, the Energizer Bunny:

Thus, this so-called “JournoList” is the same thing, an attempt initiated by Tucker Carlson, to demonize individuals who participate in an exchange of observations and ideas, as if it is some sort of a conspiracy of the left to control and manipulate the media and the news. Other than a list of names, where is the specific evidence?

If there ever was a bigger "head-in-the-sand" denial of basic reality, please show it to me. But Perry gets even "better":

Let us be honest, there is the same sort of inter communication among the opinion makers on the right, as evidenced by the talking points promulgated instantly amongst them on key issues, as they act in lock step. In fact, I will suggest that this sort of thing is more organized by the propagandists on the Right, taking their lead from Limbaugh and the FoxNews folks.

YEAH! So, even though there's no evidence of rightist journalists doing what lefties did via JouroList, they have a JournoList type of organization, and in fact they're even more organized than the lefties. And while the lefties merely "participate in an exchange of observations and ideas," the righties engage in "propaganda."

There's your comedic respite for the day, folks.

Umm ...

... maybe this idiot forgot that the majority of Mexicans have European blood?? Yeesh.

Americans are "spoiled"

Lib talker Bill Press:

Best part: "Lincoln couldn't have governed today." Yeah, he only had to govern through a CIVIL WAR -- the most destructive conflict by far in our NATION'S HISTORY!!

Un-freakin'-real.

(h/t: The Corner.)

Democrats gone wild

Maybe they can begin selling these vids on late night TV ... here's the latest making the rounds of a Democrat losing it:

Interesting the "progressive" complaints

Byron York has an interesting article on former Al Gore's supposed attempted tryst with a masseuse back in 2006. What is even more interesting are the ridiculously pathetic excuses noted in the report by ... "progressives."

Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her "to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."

That reminded me of a great hit from the Lewinsky era. Time magazine’s Nina Burleigh said, “I would be happy to give him” — Bill Clinton — “[oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

And let me also remember Gus Savage, the Chicago congressman who set himself on a Peace Corps volunteer — black, like the congressman himself — in Zaire. He said, “Oh, come on, baby, when you help the shepherd, you help the whole flock.” He also said, if she submitted to him, she would be helping “the movement.” Later, when the young woman reported the congressman’s actions, he called her “a traitor to the black movement.”

You might remember Gore himself proclaiming Bill Clinton as the greatest president ever during the Lewinsky scandal. Our old friend Perry has time and time again guffawed at those who point out Al Gore's "green" hypocrisy (buying a huge mansion, traveling extensively). And then, of course, there's "old reliable."

What is this predilction among so-called "progressives" to turn a blind eye to outrageous and illegal acts among their own -- just to maintain their grip on power ... and dogma? Aren't "progressives" supposed to me the empathetic ones? The caring ones? The moral and law-abiding ones??

Just don't get in their way, however.

Amazing how ...

... "progressives" get all uppity about being "classy" and "respectful" when one of their own passes.

Despite him being a former Ku Klux Klan bigwig.

Locally, get a good laugh at the defense. And keep in mind that these cretins are the same ones who'll jump in a nanosecond to trash any conservative in death. Hell, they wish conservatives would be killed, period!

UPDATE: It gets better! Never let a former Klansman pass on ... without taking an opportunity to bash George W. Bush!

This must be why Oliver Stone made a loving documentary about him

Venezuela's Hugo Chávez:

“Arab civilization and our civilization, the Latin American one, are being summoned in this new century to play the fundamental role of liberating the world, saving the world from the imperialism and capitalist hegemony that threaten the human species. Syria and Venezuela are at the vanguard of this struggle.” (Link.)

Hilariously, idiot Stone's film portrait of him flopped where it shouldn't have -- Chávez's own backyard. Perhaps this is because real Venezuelans know the guy has become a quasi-Fidel Castro (who's also the subject of a Stone love-youmentary along with that other great humanitarian, Yasser Arafat) ... they're not mega-rich, elitist utopians like Stone -- who wouldn't even be allowed to do what he does in places like Venezuela, Cuba or Gaza without the very permission of the dictators he lionizes.

Amazing that an obviously bright guy just cannot grasp this.

Meanwhile, Variety rips Stone's love fest.

In semi-related news, Cuba has been elected vice-president of the U.N. Human Rights Council, with Miguel d’Escoto, "the old Sandinista foreign minister, and a classic anti-American and anti-Semite," appointed to the council’s advisory panel.

It's a damn funny world we inhabit.

I wonder if the folks at Newsweek really wonder why their readership is dwindling

Recently, Newsweek unbelievably asked "Why Doesn't the Media Interrogate Tea Partiers' Beliefs?" One need not go much further than the opening paragraph:

The media's enduring, and understandable, fascination with the Tea Party movement continues unabated, as this weekend's coverage demonstrates. Unfortunately, what appear to be false notions of objectivity—or perhaps a lack of interest in policy—is preventing that coverage from illuminating what the movement actually represents and what it would do if empowered.

Author Ben Adler calls Tea Partiers "ignorant" for not realizing that President Obama has cut their taxes, and to prove it links to a CBS article showing such. But a closer look at the CBS link shows the following:

If so many tax cuts were passed, why have so few Americans actually noticed them?

Possibility 1 – the tax cuts were expansive, but small.

While the majority of the tax cuts, passed last February, affected 95 percent of working families, when they took affect by April of 2009, the monetary value was not too large -- most families saw about $70 more in take home pay every month. Individual workers saw about $13 more a week.

Any tax relief is still relief, but many Americans may not have felt that the tax cuts had much impact.

Possibility 2 – the talk of raising taxes in the future clouded the landscape.

In his 2011 budget, the president has already made it clear that his administration wants to end the Bush–era tax cuts for wealthier families, set to expire next year. So it could be that people see that move as a tax hike already.

Indeed -- considering "Possibility 2" makes Tea Partiers even more politically aware than your average joe (and writer Adler). And the expiring Bush-era tax cuts are only the tip of the iceberg; there's the coming ObamaCare increase in costs and the Obama-desired Cap and Trade legislation which would markedly increase energy costs for Americans. Did it occur to Adler that your average Tea Partier has weighed the $70 per month savings against the coming out-of-pocket increases?

Next, Adler repeats a previously [Newsweek]-used poll by the University of Washington which purports to show the Tea Partiers are racist. Dutiful MSM types and "progressive" bloggers ate it up. However, RealClearPolitics' Cathy Young dissected the "poll" and discovered no such thing. James Taranto likewise shredded the poll by Prof. Christopher Parker.

But the larger issue is Adler's astonishing assertion that the Tea Party is being given a "free pass" by the media! Once you get over your guffaw, be sure to check out the link after link after link showing that the MSM has given the Tea Party anything but a "free pass."

But go right ahead, Mr. Adler. Keep using the same, tired old links (and clichés) to "prove" your assertions ... and watch your readership continue to plummet. Fine by me.

And MSNBC wonders why their ratings suck so much?

Here's a textbook example:

Idiot

The Washington Post's Norman Chad thinks that the USA soccer team ought to just fold -- and then cheer on others at the World Cup:

I love the World Cup. And I love America -- it's my home town! But I would not love to see America win the World Cup.

Frankly, we don't need another feather in our already overstuffed cap. And considering soccer is the world's game -- and most of the world is at odds with America at any given moment -- I think it might be a nice idea for Uncle Sam, in an effort to promote world harmony, to lay down in South Africa.

Americans are a pretty xenophobic lot when, in truth, we're the ones who provoke an intense dislike. Most of the world does not threaten us; rather, most of the world is terrified by us. We're a little too big, a little too rich and a little too powerful and, every once in a while, we muscle up and flex our military might in foreign lands.

There is much fear and loathing of America elsewhere. We seldom imagine what it would be like if the Army boot were on the other foot.

Outside of American borders, others are tired of us dictating our way of life, tired of us exporting Adam Sandler everywhere, tired of us winning. I empathize, and this time around, I'm willing to root for the others.

Except, Norm, that this World Cup is being played for the first time on the African continent, and Africans have the highest regard for the United States compared to any other place in the world. Maybe this is the one sporting event the US ought to try to do well in, eh?

Sheesh.

Magnificent "insight" from the originator of Delaware's most "progressive" blog

Man, check out how Jason "Trust Fund" Scott (who started the LGOMB blog) deals with criticism of his lord and savior, Barack Obama, from the Left:

Hey that reminds me. How’s that “principled criticism of Obama from the left” blog you are working on going? Oh that’s right. You are a lazy, no talent ass-munch. Never mind.

And it gets "better":

Why don’t you suck my dick before you sit on it? Short of that, why don’t you start the blog and see if there is a market for your brand of principled criticism.

There you have it, folks -- the "voice of First State progressivism."

Why are Democrats being racist towards their Senate nominee in South Carolina?

What is their deal? People have come out claiming that Alvin Greene (at left) is a "GOP plant" and shouldn't get the party nod -- despite winning the Democrat primary there.

David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Obama, said Greene's victory "was not legitimate."

“It doesn’t appear [legitimate] to me,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “The whole thing is odd. I don’t know how really to explain it. I don’t think anyone else does either.”

Axelrod must be ... A RACIST!!

Keith Olbermann asked Greene if he was a GOP plant. RACIST!!

And then there's the execrable Jim Clyburn of South Carolina who wants a federal investigation into the whole deal. And most recently, he accused fellow SC congressman Jim Wilson's campaign manager of being behind Greene:

We see that Joe Wilson, the Republican congressman -- who I asked the House to censure for disrupting the President's speech -- his campaign manager was managing my opponent's campaign and so they were running my opponent's campaign, Alvin Greene's campaign and Ben Frasier, down in the first congressional district. The only federal campaigns on the ballot, all three of those are being run [by] either the same shop and that shop was Joe Wilson's campaign manager and former staffer on his Congressional staff. So, that's all the proof I need. (Frasier denies the whole thing.)

Is Clyburn, too, a RACIST??

UPDATE: This guy must a RACIST too: Vic Rawl, former SC state Representative and Greene opponent, filed a formal protest about Greene's election:

"We have filed this protest not for my personal or political gain [LOL!! -- Hube], but on behalf of the people of South Carolina," the Democratic hopeful said in a statement on his official Web site.

"There is a cloud over South Carolina, that affects all of our people, Democrats and Republicans, white and African-American alike," he said. "At this point, the people of our state do not have the basic confidence that their vote will be counted."

UPDATE 2: Now Clyburn's venturing into moonbat territory -- like that of Keith Olbermann about Ohio after election 2004, and virtually the whole MSM during election 2000:

Clyburn says South Carolina used voting machines that all other states rejected. In fact, they were bought from Louisiana, he said.

"Something went wrong with these machines," Clyburn said. "They were very unreliable," he added.

"All you need is a magnet" to compromise the machines, Rep. Clyburn said.

Who would have a motive? "The motive could very well be to embarass the Democratic party. This could be embarassing if we do not get it worked out. Or this could be someone who wanted to ensure a victory [for incumbent Sen. Jim DeMint]," Clyburn said.

Clyburn concluded there is a "great possibility" that someone paid for him to run and tampered with the machines.

UPDATE 3: Jon Stewart on the Greene win:

Here's how people should act when the public that pays them asks a question

Uh huh. This is Rep. Bob Etheridge (D), North Carolina:

(h/t: Breitbart.)

UPDATE: Listen to Etheridge discuss how young people should "get engaged!" LOL!!!

UPDATE 2: Check out this biased headline: "NC Congressman Attacked For Grabbing Man’s Neck In Internet Video."

What was that about a politicized curriculum?

Rhymes With Right asks the question. Remember Texas?

Then there's this:

Standing in front of a wall-to-wall mural featuring a who's who of revolutionaries, including Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, and boldly displaying the motto Patria o Muerte, Venceremos!!! (Fatherland or Death, We Shall Overcome!!!), a group of teachers, students, parents and community activists in the Los Angeles Unified School District gathered last month for an unusual field trip — to Arizona, to protest that state's controversial immigration law.

A video posted on YouTube shows LA social studies teacher Jose Lara interviewing teachers and students on May 28 at the headquarters of an organization calling for a Mexican revolution on U.S. soil. Soon after he shot the video, many in the group left for an overnight "freedom ride" to Phoenix to protest what Lara tells the camera is a "racist and outrageous" law.

Only MSM talking heads can get all uppity about "capitalism" [supposedly] being replaced by "free enterprise," but then shrug their shoulders about a school field trip featuring those great humanitarians Castro, Minh and Guevara.

Liberal hate rhetoric (and actions)

Where's Olbermann, Matthews, Sanchez, et. al?

The New York rabbi who videotaped veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas telling Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" says he has received numerous death threats and thousands of pieces of hate mail in the days since Thomas' abrupt retirement.

Rabbi David Nesenoff said he is facing an "overload" of threatening e-mails calling for a renewed Holocaust and targeting his family — a barrage of hate he said he planned to report to the police on Wednesday. (Source.)

Meanwhile, it seems some folks are listening to our president's rhetoric about BP:

Windows at the BP Gas Station on Highway 51 at Custer Drive were shot out overnight. Folks who work at the store believe the suspects were expressing anger over BP and how it's handling the oil spill.

Incidents of anger spilling over at locally owned BP gas stations have been reported in several areas. In New York City several BP signs have been vandalized. Owners there believe vandals are filling balloons with dirt then throwing them at the signs.

Meanwhile, the MSM talking heads are still trying to figure out how to spin the Tea Party's involvement in all this.

Humanitarians

The members of that Gaza flotilla. Say it with me now: "Cheeyeah, RIGHT!"

In response to a radio transmission by the Israeli Navy warning the Gaza flotilla that they are approaching a naval blockade, passengers of the Mavi Marmara respond, "Shut up, go back to Auschwitz" and "We're helping Arabs go against the US, don't forget 9/11". (Source.)

Now why would "peace" activists say something as dreadful as that? Someone tell our local useful idiot.

California rep thinks 60% of Americans are white supremacists

That would be Linda Sanchez (D, surprise!), who said:

The Arizona laws are not a mistake. They’re not accidental or one person’s crazy idea. There’s a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups.

It’s been documented. It’s not mainstream politics. (Legislators) are being approached by folks, who are front organizations for white supremacist hate groups. They propose the language of these bills and get people to carry these bills in the state legislatures.

Does Sanchez actually have proof of this? Or is she merely using the "kindred spirit" argument -- that, merely because some nutjob white power losers are in favor of the Arizona law, that therefore all of the law's supporters believe as said losers?

Watch the latest incident involving Israel bring out the worst in the usual suspects

I just had the [dis]pleasure of hearing noted Louis Farrakhan fan and Israel hater Liz Allen on local radio. Scum like this will begin crawling out from under their rocks now that Israel has had a scuffle with a flotilla that was supposedly carrying "humanitarian" aid to the Gaza Strip.

I suggest regularly checking out sites like Soccer Dad to counter-balance the usual anti-Israel reporting you'll hear on the MSM (and elsewhere).

The A.P.'s "inciteful" headline

Christian conservatives target seated judges.

Why did they choose the word "target?" Isn't that "hateful" and "inciteful?" How quickly the hypocrites forget, eh?

Liberal hate rhetoric

The MSM spent how long(?) trying to convince themselves -- and us -- that Tea Partiers were hateful, violent racists; have you heard about this from former NYT Middle East Bureau Chief Chris Hedges?

Here’s to the Greeks. They know what to do when corporations pillage and loot their country.

Greeks ... know what to do when Goldman Sachs and international bankers collude with their power elite to falsify economic data and then make billions betting that the Greek economy will collapse. They know what to do when they are told their pensions, benefits and jobs have to be cut to pay corporate banks, which screwed them in the first place. Call a general strike. Riot. Shut down the city centers. Toss the bastards out. Do not be afraid of the language of class warfare—the rich versus the poor, the oligarchs versus the citizens, the capitalists versus the proletariat. The Greeks, unlike most of us, get it.

Now, consider for a moment if a noted conservative journalist, say, like Fred Barnes, had written something like this about the Tea Party with regards to ObamaCare.

Yes, consider ...

"Dissent is the highest form of ..." well, not anymore

Yet another lefty forgets it's merely been a year and a half since he felt completely differently:

Governor Deval Patrick, even as he decried partisanship in Washington, said today that Republican opposition to President Obama’s agenda has become so obstinate that it “is almost at the level of sedition.”

Patrick said that even "on my worst day, when I’m most frustrated about folks who seem to rooting for failure," he doesn't face anything like the opposition faced by the president.

"It seems like child’s play compared to what is going on in Washington, where it is almost at the level of sedition, it feels to like me,” Patrick said.

George W. Bush, when asked about Patrick's comments, merely looked down and let out a big sigh.

"Progressive" empathy and moral fraudulence

Over at the LGOMB (for the uninitiated, that's the "Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers"), they recently advertised the podcast for former members dimwitty and Jason "Trust Fund" Scott. Included in the podcast were very disparaging comments about Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome child.

Now, why would "progressives" -- whose very existence is supposed to be all about "empathy," "sensitivity" and "tolerance" -- tear into a defenseless, handicapped young child?

Check out the ridiculous rationalizations by the loyally dogmatic in the comments. And hey, at least these group-thinkers know there are some "big tent" Republicans who'll welcome them anytime.

Wearing an American flag is "disrespect"

More on that California high school idiocy where several students were asked to remove their American flag t-shirts because it was Cinco de Mayo:

When these young men refused Assistant Principal’s Rodriguez’s request to turn their shirts inside out, they were standing up for their First Amendment rights and pride in their nation. Hispanic students at the school threw a hissy fit. Roughly 200 Hispanic teens protested, claiming they were slighted by the young men wearing American flags on Cinco de Mayo. They chanted “We want respect!” and “Si se puede!”:

The group — mostly high school students — walked out of school this morning after the story of four students who were sent home because they wore American flag T-shirts went viral on TV and online. Many wear red, white and green and two large Mexico flags can be seen at the front of the line.

The students say they want people to know they’re proud of their heritage and they believe wearing red, white and blue on Cinco de Mayo is disrespectful.

I mean ... cripes -- what can anyone actually say to such outright stupidity? Some educators "tried to use the bizarre argument that wearing the U.S. flag to school on Cinco de Mayo was the equivalent of wearing the Mexican flag on the Fourth of July," but Cinco de Mayo isn't even Mexican Independence Day ... not to mention it's not even widely celebrated in Mexico! And why does this high school officially sanction MEChA -- the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán -- a group which desires that much of the [US] southwest be returned to Mexico? Can you imagine the reaction if, say, an Idaho high school sanctioned a student "militia" group that wanted the northwest to be "purged of all foreigners?" Yeah, I'm sure you can -- MSNBC and the rest of the MSM would be tying it into the Tea Party movement and blaming it on the fact that Barack Obama is a black guy!

As I said in my original post on this matter, "Only in America, folks." Only in America.

Liberal hate rhetoric (and actions)

You know by now what would have happened in the MSM had this been directed at a supporter of ObamaCare:

[Arizona] State Capitol police shut down the access to the Executive Tower Tuesday morning after a letter containing an unknown "white powdery substance" was opened in the governor's constituency services office.

An employee opened the letter about 10:15 a.m. and contacted Capitol police, who then alerted Phoenix Fire Department about the substance. A hazardous materials crew was on scene.

Officials did not evacuate the Executive Tower, however they limited access in or out of the building, said Andrew Staubitz, chief of the Arizona Capitol Police. The lockdown was lifted at 11:23 a.m.

Gee, why would this happen to the Arizona governor? Hmm ... oh, right! She signed into law a tough anti-illegal immigration bill. But those opposed seem not to like it. I wonder if the MSM and lefty bloggers will use a very wide brush to paint those opposed to the law ...

Oh gee -- he was "mistaken"

Delaware Douche, who yesterday commented that the Times Square would-be bomber would turn out to be domestic talk radio listening/Fox News watching Tea Party sympathizer, offers nary a word of apology -- only excuses. And he congratulates the Obama administration (surprise) while simultaneously ripping conservatives (bigger surprise):

A naturalized American citizen originally from Pakistan was arrested for the attempted Times Square car bomb last night on his getaway plane to Dubai. A victory for law enforcement and the Obama Administration. Now try him in our courts and convict him, and that will be another victory for our justice system. He is an American citizen and should be punished according to our laws. Law and order conservatives can have no problem with that, and if they do, they are hypocrites.

To quote Booman, with whom I share a mistaken first impression that the Time Square attempted carbombing was not the work of foreign terrorists:

I admit my initial skepticism that it was an attack with foreign connections was incorrect, though it seems clear that the bomber wasn’t particularly well trained in the art of bomb making by the Taliban in Pakistan or by anyone else for that matter. Terrorists do hate us, but not for our freedom as idiot conservatives like to say. They often have very legitimate reasons for hating us. If they attacked us with predator drones and killed your innocent family, I’d say we hate them too.

You follow that? Delaware Douche and this "Booman" are saying that foreign TERRORISTS have a legitimate gripe against us because the US sends predator drones to kill ... TERRORISTS. Because these predator drones may kill a TERRORIST'S innocent family. TERRORISTS, whose sole occupation is to kill innocent families.

But y'know what? If this suspect ended up being a guy like the one who flew a plane into that IRS building ... because, say, our own government screwed up his tax filings and hence was now making him destitute with liens and wage attachments, Delaware Douche and his co-horts wouldn't offer excuse one. There would be a flood of posts all week about the "epidemic" of rightist domestic terrorism, and how talk radio and Fox News were co-conspirators.

This is your modern "progressive," folks. Foreign enemies whose only desire is to see their religion dominate the globe, see all who oppose them killed, and see all women as subservient subjects, are less of a threat than the opposing political party and philosophy here at home.

Scary stuff.

Nationally, bigwig lefty sites also make themselves look like a-holes.

Some MSM types are "frustrated" that the terrorist looks to be Muslim:

"I get frustrated...There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country."

"...There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry."

You mean ... like Tea Partiers? Conservatives? Republicans?

Of course not.

Right on cue!

The LGOMB lead the way -- just as I predicted yesterday:

I think we have to consider that this might be the beginning of a new wave of domestic terrorism as well – much like Oklahoma City – with its roots in an embittered right that wants to prove its usefullness [sic] again. It will be interesting to see who is responsible for this and how it changes perceptions. While it is much scarier if it is a true terrorist with foreign ties, we should be equally alarmed if this is a sign that domestic terrorism is on the rise. It would mean all of the heated rhetoric of the last year or so is finally motiving [sic] already unstable people to act in extreme ways. -- "anononthisone"

Is it too early to pin this on Glenn Beck? Whe [sic] it does turn out to be a conservative nutbag I’m sure it will just be a loner with no connection mainstream “for entertainment only” violent wingnuttery. -- Jason "Trust Fund" Scott.

In the end it will be another numerous episode of right wing terrorism. -- Delaware "Kill All Republicans" Dem.

It certainly may end up that some [right-wing] nutjob was responsible. But it doesn't even matter to these mental defectives. If it turns out to be [another] radical Islamic fundie, the LGOMB will complain about the Right "demonizing" Muslims (much like the current administration) and how we can't "judge all Muslims" by their fringe elements. However, that is precisely what they'll do if the Times Square plotters are Tim McVeigh types.

We're quite careful here to label Islamic terrorists what they are: radical extremists who do not represent a majority of Muslims. However, it is necessary for morons like the LGOMB to label any act by a nutjob rightist as representative of ALL conservatives. Because they are the enemy -- to them, much moreso than even al Qaeda and the Taliban. After all, have you read anyplace where Delaware Dem called for all Muslims to be rounded up and shot?

Lies about the Arizona immigration law

Let's first start at the top with The Messiah:

"You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona ..." the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, "suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed."

LIE.

Colombian singer Shakira:

"Shakira is deeply concerned about the impact of this law on hard-working Latino families," said Trevor Nielson, the singer's "political and philanthropic adviser". "She is coming to Arizona to try to learn more about how law enforcement is reacting to this and how we can ensure that people in the state of Arizona are not being targeted because of the colour of their skin."

Because they WON'T.

Ricky Martin:

"This is not in the script," he said at the ceremony in San Juan, Puerto Rico. "You are not alone. We are with you. Put a stop to discrimination. Put a stop to hate. Put a stop to racism…Long live love, long live peace."

How about ... PUT A STOP TO YOUR IGNORANCE.

GOP Florida Senator Connie Mack:

"This law of 'frontier justice' – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on “reasonable suspicion” that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause," said Mack in a statement. "It shouldn’t be against the law to not have proof of citizenship on you."

LIE.

St. Paul, Minnesota, Mayor Chris Coleman:

Adding to calls to shun the state, Saint Paul, Minnesota, Mayor Chris Coleman on Wednesday banned publicly funded travel to Arizona. The state law set a "dangerous example to the rest of the country," he said, by creating a culture that made racial profiling acceptable.

LIE.

The Messiah again:

"What I think is a mistake is when we start having local law enforcement officials empowered to stop people on suspicion that they may be undocumented workers."

LIE.

Rep. Nydia Velazquez, chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus:

"It is irresponsible for any city, state or elected official to legalize racial profiling and discrimination. That is exactly what the governor of Arizona and the Republican-controlled legislature had done," the New York Democrat said. She added: "This shortsighted law is a step backward in our nation's ongoing struggle to provide civil rights for all. This bill will not make our borders more secure, but it will open the door to discrimination and racial profiling."

LIE.

The "Rev." Al Sharpton:

"This is about the Constitution of the United States. And this is about making sure that people have equal protection under the law," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, a civil rights activist. "And if you are a Latino in Phoenix, you should not be subjected to having to ride around with citizenship papers any more than anyone else."

News flash, Al: FEDERAL LAW ALREADY REQUIRES THAT NON-CITIZENS ALWAYS CARRY THEIR "PAPERS" WITH THEM.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo):

“It is absolutely reminiscent of second class status of Jews in Germany prior to World War II when they had to have their papers with them at all times and were subject to routine inspections at the suspicion of being Jewish."

LIE.

AZ Rep. Ed Pastor (D):

“Arizona is better than this. Our nation is better than this. Passage of this bill will severely set back all the civil rights we have fought for in this country. It’s embarrassing to continue to see our state legislature churn out these hate-filled measures that offer no real solutions and violate our civil rights.”

LIE.

New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse:

[She] called Arizona a “police state” and said she would avoid it till the law changed. She compared the law to “the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa.”

LIE.

Darrell Steinberg, the President Pro Tem of the Califorina State Senate:

“It’s a civil-rights issue whenever you set somebody aside because of the color of their skin or where they come from,” said Steinberg, who is a lawyer. “And that applies to both legal immigrants, citizens and undocumented immigrants. I mean, how do you define reasonable suspicion? There’s only one way under that law. And it’s somebody who looks Mexican. Period.”

LIE. And, some "lawyer." He doesn't know how "reasonable suspicion" is defined? Here's some legal assistance for Mr. Pro Tem, from one of the crafters of the AZ law -- a lawyer who KNOWS about "reasonable suspicion":

Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

Let the hysteria -- and the LIES -- continue. We'll be here to shoot 'em down. (Oh, wait -- was that "inciteful rhetoric?")

Who'da thought? Clinton hypocritical on protester rhetoric!

Here's what Bubba said about rioting anarchists in Seattle back in 2001:

"I don't think anybody in America should take what a few violent people did as in any way representative of this community or of the people who are here for peaceful protests."

But, of course, 'ol Slick sure had no compunctions about blaming Rush Limbaugh, et. al. for Tim McVeigh's terrorism, or that of just about any other rightist extremist.

RELATED: CNN describes the recently passed Arizona immigration law as "polarizing." But ... the network never referred to the Obama health care bill that way -- even though most Americans were against that (while the Arizona public overwhelmingly supported the immigration bill). And here's why: D.F.T.N.

ALSO RELATED: Civil Disobedience To Become Hip Again:

Not that Tea Partiers necessarily have been practicing civil disobedience, but based on typical media coverage you would think they're the greatest threat to humanity in centuries.

Well, Barack Obama's pal Al Sharpton is glomming on to the Arizona illegal alien issue like it's a pork chop and plans to start milking it for all it's worth. It'll be interesting to see the media finger-waggers decrying the civil disorder when it's one of their favorite pets doing it.

The Rev. Al Sharpton says he will challenge Arizona's new immigration bill in court and on the streets.

Sharpton is joining Lillian Rodriguez Lopez from the Hispanic Federation to announce a legal challenge to the bill. They say activists are also prepared to commit civil disobedience to fight the Arizona immigration bill.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill Friday. It requires police to question people about their immigration status — including asking for identification — if they suspect someone is in the country illegally.

Just to be clear though -- police cannot arbitrarily just come up to someone and demand "papers;" at the very least police must pull over a suspect for a traffic violation or something similar.

Violent coffee parties

They want to "get even."

Don't look for this report ad nauseum on the MSM. D.F.T.N.

UPDATE: Imagine if Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin or any other of the MSM's favorite targets had uttered the following:

"And we shouldn't talk to them, try to persuade them," he continued. "We should burn them down. We should go after them with pitchforks, knives, guns, clubs we find, mace - anything, because it's appalling. You only need to read the story that ProPublica did about the hedge fund Magnetar and what they did or Michael Lewis' ‘The Big Short' or these stories about Goldman to realize these guys are corrupt."

That's Slate editor David Plotz. If he was a Tea Partier, MSNBC and co. would be trashing him for weeks on end as an example of how the Right is inciting ... well, you surely know by now since it's so predictable.

Liberal hate rhetoric

Of course, you won't hear this as a major story on the big news broadcasts or on CNN, MSNBC with an ominous headline along the lines of "Hate on the Rise?"

They're the kind of obscenity-laced schoolyard taunts that could get a student suspended.

But the target of this tirade is New Jersey's Gov. Chris Christie — and the perpetrators are the state's teachers, irate over his calls for salary freezes and funding cuts for schools.

In Facebook messages visible to the world — not to mention their students — the teachers have called Christie fat, compared him to a genocidal dictator and wished he was dead. The postings are often riddled with bad grammar and misspellings.

"Never trust a fat f...," read one profane post on the Facebook page, "New Jersey Teachers United Against Governor Chris Christie's Pay Freeze," which has some 69,000 fans, many of them teachers.

"How do you spell A-- hole? C-H-R-I-S C-H-R-I-S-T-I-E," read another.

"Remember Pol Pot, dictator of Cambodia?" warned another. "He reigned in terror, his target was teachers and intellectuals. They were either killed or put into forced labor... King Kris Kristy is headed in this direction."

Yep -- I sure can see a few years from now forced labor and re-education camps all over New Jersey, where teachers and intellectuals are imprisoned! Boy -- and "progressives" are apoplectic about Tea Partiers' rhetoric regarding Barack Obama?? Oh, and the teacher who wrote the Pol Pot nonsense claimed that Christie is only trying to "kill us spiritually." Right. She also said her salary of just over $50K per year "isn't enough to make ends meet."

Since when?