Posts Tagged ‘political correctness’

Team Hillary Clinton: ‘Special Place In Hell’ For Women Who Don’t Vote For Hillary, And Oh, Yeah, Young Women Are Ignorant BIMBOS

February 8, 2016

It’s always funny to me to watch hypocrites, I mean liberals.

Imagine if Ted Cruz started talking about “a special place in hell” for those who didn’t vote for him.  Imagine if the Cruz campaign spouted the outright misogynist contempt for women that Hillary’s top shrews just spouted.

The feminist writer Gloria Steinem apologized on Sunday for remarks about young women who support Bernie Sanders, not long after Hillary Clinton defended Madeleine Albright over her comment that there is “a special place in hell” for women who do not support Clinton.

Steinem posted her apology to Facebook, writing that she “misspoke” on Friday when on a talk show she spoke about women who support Clinton’s rival in the Democratic presidential race, Senator Bernie Sanders.

Appearing on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, Steinem said women “get more activist as they grow older. And when you’re younger, you think: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’”

On Sunday she wrote that she had not meant to imply “young women aren’t serious in their politics”. [….]

Also on Sunday, Clinton said that the remark Albright delivered at a rally in Concord, New Hampshire, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” was nothing new. Albright has used it at least since 2008, when she supported Clinton’s first run for president, against Barack Obama.

Clinton said that the belief arose from Albright’s own long fight for equality. Nevertheless, on Saturday, hours after Steinem’s remark, Albright’s words angered some, who found them condescending, and brought questions of gender and politics into high relief on the trail.

Clinton appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday and described Albright’s comment as a “light-hearted but very pointed remark”.

“Madeline has been saying this for many, many years,” Clinton said. “She believes it firmly, in part because she knows what a struggle it has been, and she understands the struggle is not over.”

Albright served as secretary of state – the first woman in the post – during Bill Clinton’s presidency. She “has a life experience that I respect”, Clinton said.

“I don’t want people to be offended,” Clinton said. But when asked if she understood why some women did take offense, she suggested political correctness had made Americans overly sensitive.

“Good grief, we’re getting offended by everything these days!” she said. “People can’t say anything without offending somebody.”

I want you to imagine if Ted Cruz had said there was a special place in hell for people who didn’t vote for him and how Hillary Clinton and her cult priestesses would have handled it.

It’s always amazing for me how liberals exploit religion while demonizing and slandering people who would dare to accurately quote the Bible to explain how God patiently explained His positions.  How DARE we directly quote the Bible to reveal the truth about God’s views on homosexuality, abortion and human-government as Savior socialism.

I want to call out Hillary Clinton for using the spike-studded bludgeon of political correctness to attack her rivals for YEARS.

Young women support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton by a tune of 84% to 14%.

It’s because Hillary spent years of her life cynically and cravenly exploiting the most politically correct brand of feminism only to finally hang on her own damn petard as women realized that the same woman who says that women should be believed because they’re women demonized NUMEROUS women for coming forward to claim that Bill Clinton was a serial molester of women and an outright RAPIST.  As women finally realized that Hillary Clinton took MILLIONS from the most oppressive regimes to women and women’s rights on the face of the earth.  That Hillary Clinton has been a lifelong WHORE for Wall Street and was paid $40 million for prostituting herself for them and for their interests.

I mean, Hillary Clinton has raised more than $153 million primarily from the worst and most greedy Wall Street players just since 2001.

And I mean, 2001, that’s right: that’s the year Bill and Hillary left the White House “dead broke” unless Hillary Clinton is a demon-possessed LIAR.

Hillary says, “You know, you had to make double the money because of, obviously, taxes, and then pay off the debts and get us houses and take care of family members.”  Because, you know, when Democrats viciously attacked John McCain over “houses,” it’s unfair to expect Bill and Hillary to be satisfied with just one house.

Definition of “dead broke”: Hillary’s limousine chauffeur had to drive her to the airport for first class travel when she clearly belonged in a private jet.

Hillary says indignantly that she has never changed a vote due to the millions she has received.  Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren remembers what an outright lie this ludicrous statement is.

Warren is on the record saying of Hillary Clinton:

“As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It’s a well-financed industry,” Warren said. “She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency … The credit industry on this bankruptcy bill has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying.”

Which is a polite way of saying that if Hillary Clinton wants what used to be her soul back, she’s going to have to come crawling to its current legal owners at Goldman Sachs.

I always marvel how massive wealth is demonized … unless the Democrat who is running for president happens to be filthy freaking rich the way Hillary Clinton is this year or John Kerry was filthy rich in 2004.  But don’t worry, abject hypocrisy will allow the woman who sold her soul to Wall Street to present herself as the champion of the people (whom she long ago sold out to Wall Street).

And Hillary Clinton just a) demonized and b) trivialized those young feminist women.  I mean, they’re not exercising their independence and voting for whom they believe is the best candidate; they’re stupid bimbos and sluts who would sell their soul for the next boy to come along the same way Hillary sold her soul for the first Wall Street dollar to come along.

Young women are just … stupid, top Team Hillary witches say.  And filled with lust for those strapping young men over at the Bernie Sanders camp.  And they’re all going to burn in hell for it.

Because these same old, wrinkled feminists who threw Jesus in a jar of urine and thought themselves clever for calling their “art” Piss Christ believe it is not by Jesus, but by Hillary Clinton, that ye are saved.  And these former purveyors of self-justifying “tolerance” teach that all the infidels will burn in hell for not having saving faith in Hillary.

All I can tell you is the cat ought to be out of the bag about what a vicious shrew Hillary Clinton and her team of witches very clearly are – and just how much contempt they truly have for young women.

 

Government Education: Please Write ‘There Is No God But Allah’ And Wear This Hijab While You’re At It. Pardon Us While We Ban Your Christianity.

December 31, 2015

This is an amazing world under our demon-possessed president:.

I want you to carefully notice that this is NOT some accident where a “teacher” (read “Obama government propaganda expert”) hastily went online and googled “Arabic sentence” and inadvertently ended up with the WORST SENTENCE IN ISLAM.  No, the form specifically points out “Here is the shahada, the Islamic statement of faith, written in Arabic.”

Please write “There is no god but Allah.  Mohammad is the messenger of Allah.”  And we’re going to grade you on how well you do it.  Just don’t you DARE ask for a Bible.”

Public School Students Told to Practice Calligraphy by Writing ‘There is No God but Allah’
By PJ Media December 16, 2015

Students at Riverheads High School in Greenville, Virginia, were told to practice calligraphy by writing out the statement “There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” The assignment was given by classroom teacher Cheri Laporte.

Riverbends-High-Header-600

That statement is known as the Muslim statement of faith or the shahada.  The school district defended the assignment last week when it met with outraged parents.

“Neither these lessons, nor any other lesson in the world geography course, are an attempt at indoctrination to Islam or any other religion, or a request for students to renounce their own faith or profess any belief,” the district said in a statement provided to Fox News.

Parents told The Schilling Show that their children were not given the translation of what they were writing.

Riverheads High School Principal, Max Lowe, did not directly acknowledge an inquiry requesting confirmation of the incident, clarification of policy, and disciplinary measures, if any, taken against Ms. Laporte.

The school district defended the assignment.

“The statement presented as an example of the calligraphy was not translated for students, nor were students asked to translate it, recite it or otherwise adopt or pronounce it as a personal belief,” the district stated.  “They were simply asked to attempt to artistically render written Arabic in order to understand its artistic complexity.”

Further, the district said the assignment was “consistent with the Virginia Department of Education Standards of Learning and the requirements for content instruction on world monotheistic religions.”

But parents say that other religions were not represented. Parents told The Schilling Show that “the Koran was presented to students, the Bible was not. The teacher reportedly declined to provide a Bible because all the students have either read or seen a Bible.”

Female students were also encouraged to wear a hijab, it was reported.

Now, while you kiddies are practicing your taking of the oath that there IS no god but Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet with your hijabs denoting your submission to Allah, please don’t mind us as Obama takes away ANY reference to Jesus Christ or the Holy Bible.

Meanwhile, the Obama commisars at another Obama government indoctrination center censored all biblical references from a “public school” CHARLIE BROWN/PEANUTS play.  I mean, shoot, you can’t have that: Allah doesn’t like it at all and neither does his modern prophet Obama.

Meanwhile, in yet another Obama government indoctrination center, a public high school football coach was suspended for praying.  For praying SILENTLY.  The Obama government indoctrination center – also known as a “public school” – banned prayer.  They not only banned prayer, but they officially sent “a letter banning private prayer.”  That’s right: PRIVATE PRAYER.  Because don’t you kid yourself, the Obama officials KNEW he wasn’t praying to a politically correct god.

It’s really for the kids’ own good.  Because if they keep their Christian faith, they will be flunked by liberal university professors.

I simply declare as a matter of factual historical record that my title is completely true.  No Bibles for anyone, girls put on your hijab, and join with me as we all recite the shahada which is the heart of religious Islam.  It’s an amazing thing.  And it’s going to take a while to explain why liberals are doing this.

Conservatives have been pointing out the rabid fascist fanaticism developing within our ivory towers for DECADES.  But the rot has “fundamentally transformed” beyond mere cancer and is now a viral culture-killing contagion.  I can show you Harvard’s newspaper openly calling to the banning and destruction of the 1st Amendment.  I can show you rank-and-file Yale students only too happy to end microagressions and preserve “safe spaces” by abolishing the 1st Amendment and the Constitution of the United States of America that was based on liberty and freedom.

Free speech has been abolished on liberal university campuses across the United States.  And I can document that just as easily in liberal newspapers such as the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times as I can the Wall Street Journal:

UC’s new ‘Principles Against Intolerance’ fail free-speech test

University of California considering recognizing a “right” to be “free from … expressions of intolerance”

Intolerance of intolerance: Students are ever quicker to label offensive material as hate speech

Tolerance, Free Speech Collide on Campus: A philosophical divide is at the heart of recent protests that have roiled campuses around the country

Liberals are wicked-evil-depraved-immoral people and their way is ultimately the way of Stalinism.  Which is why they literally don’t mind the Islamists who harbor the same cherished goal: a totalitarian all-powerful State.  Which is why I can take you back to 2007 when “San Francisco State University put its chapter of the College Republicans on trial for desecrating the name of Allah.”

Which only serves to show you the left’s embrace of Islam is hardly anything new.

We have entered a time when history repeats itself, with the hell of ideas that resulted in the Marxists who swiftly became the Stalinists and the Nazis who swiftly created the Holocaust emerged from ivory tower academia.  Because ideas have CONSEQUENCES.  And just as in the past, we look to our now-rabidly fascist academia system and we see the most profound tolerance to competing ideas and free speech in general every bit as bad as the Islamic State fanatics.  Former Rhodes scholar and current professor emeritus of history at University of Toronto Scarborough Modris Ecksteins – who specializes in German history and modern culture – described Nazism thus: “Nazism was a popular variant of many of the impulses of the avant-garde.  It expressed on a more popular level many of the same tendencies and posited many of the same solutions that the avant-garde did on the level of ‘high art.'” [Rights of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age, p. 311]

Rights of Spring is an interest title because it points to what was THE birth of the movement known as “modernism” that the left embraced before they abandoned it in favor of the even MORE destructive philosophical view of Postmodernism that I previously described at length (How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 1); How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 2); How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 3)).  In 1913, Igor Stravinsky created a ballet he titled “The Rites of Spring.”  Rather than the traditional (i.e. conservative) graceful, stylized music and dance of the ages, Stravinsky conducted an atonal, harsh music to which his dancers moved in a ritualistic but passionate way filled with spinning and thrashing.  The idea was to portray a primitive people who had nothing to do with the “shackles” of Judeo-Christianity, who as passionate environmentalists were at one with nature and celebrating the coming of spring.  The ballet culminated in human sacrifice.  You know, like every single abortion does.

The spirit of fascism arose out of a disenchantment culminating in a rabid rejection of the traditional, Judeo-Christian worldview.  It purported itself to be both refreshingly new and yet ancient at the same time, a return to a time before factories and oil companies and global warming, in other words.  The fascists, just like their Modernist counterparts, demonized the existing Judeo-Christian civilization and proposed revolutionary new structures and values in its place.  These people were not at all interested in the discovery of truth, but the creation of “truth” through the imposition of bureaucratic (e.g. the universities) and government power.

I want you to understand something before I move on: the spirit of Postmodernism – which is the philosophical underpinning of fascism – DOMINATES the Democrat Party.  I PREDICTED the violent Occupy Movement and the 7,775 arrests these violent liberal “demonstrators” have been handed in those articles on postmodernism that I wrote in 2008.  Consider the leftist Occupy Movement and what they did and how they actedVersus ZERO arrests for the Tea Party that was nevertheless thoroughly demonized by the leftist propaganda machine a.k.a. the mainstream media.  And now we’ve got the vicious Black Lives Matter “protests” that has resulted in police afraid to do their jobs protecting the public while “demonstrators” chant pure evil such as “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” and the chant from Obama’s pal Al Sharpton during his march: “What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? NOW!”

I want you to understand that back in 2008, I was pointing out that, just like the godless, Holocaust, ideas have consequences.  Liberalism and now the entire Democrat Party is pathologically secular humanist, atheistic, postmodernist, existentialist, deconstructionist, you name it.  And we are seeing the incredibly ugly consequences beginning to emerge.  Jonah Goldberg expressed this fact very powerfully in his great book, Modern Fascism:

For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right.  And yet with the notable exception and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee if Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger.  All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment – John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke – and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism.  Meanwhile, the ranks of left-wing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition.  And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents.  The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values – even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments.

In a seminar there may be important distinctions to be made between, say, Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, and Hitler’s “revolt against reason.”  But such distinctions rarely translate beyond ivy-covered walls – and they are particularly meaningless to a movement that believes action is more important than ideas.  Deconstruction, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all of these ideas had the same purpose – to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancien regime still fought and persevered.  These were ideologies of the “movement.”  The late Richard Rorty admitted as much conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project. — Goldberg, Modern Fascism, pp. 175-176

I cited those paragraphs in another article I wrote armed with abundant evidence well over a year ago.  We are literally watching the rebirth of Nazism in the Democrat Party.  The only thing different now is that in the 1930s it was Aryan white people using racism against other people and now its the racist liberal race coalition that is using the same tactics against white people.

We talk about political correctness and many people – including those who claim to be opposed to it – have an incredibly cavalier attitude toward it.  It is incredibly dangerous and it is performing exactly as those who created intended.  Being politically correct is not just an attempt to make liberals feel better.  It is a very large, very sophisticated, very coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it. Early Marxists designed their game plan long ago and the same leftists continue to execute that plan today: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language.  If you use the wrong words or phraseology today, you won’t just get corrected or even screamed at; you’ll lose your job and be ruined.  Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive, overly gullible, and frankly amoral public.

I’ve got news for you, liberal: Nazism was born out of YOUR vile mindset, not conservatism.  It was the same damn leftist artsy-fartsy elitist avant-garders in Germany doing the same damn things the same leftist artsy-fartsy elitist avant-garders are doing today in this country.

That’s why we see the same damn thing today that we saw as Nazism rose: Then as now, those who attacked democracy, ridiculed morality and celebrated violence did so in highly sophisticated ways that ultimately boiled down to “ends justify the means” arguments that are embraced by the same thug-socialists mobs who pushed Germany into Nazism.  You look at the Occupy Movement and its violent rights-abusive “occupations.”  You look now at Black Lives Matter.  And see how they openly violate other people’s free speech and other people’s rights on the SAME DAMN ARGUMENTS that we have seen before.  It was white Aryans doing it in Nazi Germany; it is black liberals doing it now.  Same abusive tactics, different screaming faces.  Just imagine the Nazis who couldn’t acknowledge that “all lives matter” because of course some of those lives were Jewish lives.  These people are DEHUMANISTS.  It’s the inevitable product that comes from the ideology responsible for the murder of sixty million innocent human beings in the abortion mills and then selling their body parts like meat at a deli.

Which again is why I can readily display the nexus between Islamic State and the American Democrat Party as BOTH are personally and morally vested in the trafficking of HUMAN BODY PARTS as the consequence of an innocent human being’s life being brutally ended by depraved people who will all one day scream in hell for what they did to human dignity.

IF you cite the Bible, you can ONLY do so as a pretense to bring in Muslims whom we CANNOT screen for terrorist connections from terrorist-ridden Syria.  Because at the core of liberalism is 1) gargantuan hypocrisy and 2) a vacuum of any legitimate transcendent values that they could actually refer to as grounds for their depraved views.

Any prayer in the name of Jesus makes the demons that inhabit Democrats’ crawl.  It is apparently an unpleasant feeling that Democrats cannot tolerate for long unless they stop that prayer.

What is funny is how liberalism is akin to a cockroach that devours her young.  Blacks, Hispanics, feminists, homosexuals, etc. think they are going to benefit from the rise of progressive liberalism (i.e., fascism), but they will ultimately be dismayed when the whip cracks down on them the way they are helping to crack the whip on Christians and conservatives and white men.  The negativism, iconoclasm, race-polarizing, divisiveness that characterizes todays special interest leftist groups to attack the established order, but just you wait until the left becomes the firmly entrenched order because suddenly any new complaint from you will be subversive to their order.  That’s exactly what happened to homosexuals as the Third Reich arose: Hitler rose to power on the homosexual-driven SA.  But when he no longer needed them and they became an obstacle to his greater rise, he ruthlessly crushed them.  And homosexuals perished in the very death camps they had helped to create.  It’s going to happen to you, too, rank-and-file liberal turd.  Because if you truly believe a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton give one damn about you, you are a true fool.  You are truly a means to their ends.

And when that day comes, you will have no Judeo-Christian transcendent values to appeal to – because YOU ARE THE ONES WHO DESTROYED THOSE VALUES.

But a far more awful fate ultimately awaits you:

When you’re screaming in hell for all of eternity, Democrat, just please realize that you truly deserve to be there.  YOU did all these things that unleashed hell on earth.  Your voting record caused all this wickedness to happen.  You are personally to blame and you WILL ultimately be held to account.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse of Revelation chapter six are coming.  Any wise person can hear their approaching hoofbeats as I write these words.  They’re not coming for me, liberal, because Jesus is going to return to take me to be with Him at the Rapture of believers.  No, the Four Horsemen and the Antichrist you will soon be cheering for and worshiping are coming for YOU.  Pretty soon you’re going to get EVERYTHING you voted for; because you voted for hell and hell is coming for you first in this world, and ultimately in the world to come.

 

As You Survey The Mess Our Culture Is In, You’ve Got To Ask: ‘How Did It Come To This?’

January 31, 2013

There was a scene in the Lord of the Rings in which King Theoden – finally realizing that a vast horde of darkness is coming against him and that his people’s situation is now all but hopeless – asks:

Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

I ask that question of America.  The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.  In the Middle Earth of Sauron and in the America of Obama.  And the only “Return of the King” to complete the LotR trilogy will be the physical return of Christ Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords.  And that will occur only after the world has gone through seven literal years of hell on earth otherwise known as the Tribulation.

How did it come to this?

First, liberals are the most intolerant people in America.  As you read this article, realize that our crisis stems from profound liberal intolerance.  And the worst thing of all about them is the way they continually demonize their opponents as “intolerant” for the speck of intolerance in the conservatives’ eyes when there’s a giant log of intolerance in the liberals’ eyes.

Liberals are hypocrites, period.  The quintessential ingredient to liberalism is abject moral and intellectual hypocrisy.  It’s why Al Gore sells his television station to a pro-terrorist entity owned by a filthy oil emirate.  It’s why Al Gore tried to structure the deal so he wouldn’t have to pay the higher tax rate that Obama wanted and he publicly campaigned for.  And it is most certainly why liberals continually depict themselves as the most tolerant people when in reality they are by far and away the most intolerant people of all.

Pew: Liberals most intolerant online
posted at 11:00 am on March 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates.  Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves.  Does that sound like tolerance to you?  A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

  • 10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
  • 9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
  • 8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
  • 5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
  • 4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

It’s not even all that close, as their chart shows:

Andrew Malcolm has some fun with the implications:

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy  — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter.  I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements.  I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life.  Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing.  I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.

Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too.  It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals.  While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.

Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.

Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.

“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”

Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?

Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative?  Michael Medved says they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.

Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?

Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.

But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.

Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine.  Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out.  They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice.  The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.

Don’t worry, kids at home.  Liberals say that conservatives are intolerant; and if anybody else disagrees with liberals, well, those people are all intolerant, too.  And according to liberals – who are the high priests of tolerance – it is perfectly okay to be tolerant and even fascist to intolerant people.

You need to understand how we got to be in such a cultural mess, where 88% of Americans think one way but the 12% who think practically opposite the majority have been able to pretty much make up all the rules.  And our society is about to collapse because their rules are evil and frankly fascist to go along with failed.

Let us return to the main point: the secret for the collapse that will plunge us into a collapse unlike ever seen in history is liberal fascist intolerance.

I have come to believe that we are in the last days before the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  Based on that view, I understand that God prophetically warned man in His Word that as we neared the end, man would increasingly turn away from God and fall into the errors that He warned us about.  I also understand that the same God who told us it would happen 2,000 years ago and beyond is in control, and is allowing the last days to finally come upon the world.  I’ll say that from the outset.

I’m talking to a lot of Christians who have used the word “despair” to describe how they feel about the way America is going.  They somehow felt the world would just keep getting better and better and of course the exact opposite is happening.  And I want you to understand that, for me, Bible prophecy is a great comfort.  Again, I see so many signs that God predicted as a sign the last days were coming to pass and it makes me all the more certain and confident in my faith in God.  The U.S. is now over $225 trillion in actual debt when you add in the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  It is growing by about one trillion dollars every single month.  And you ought to be able to see the signs that if we fall down we will NEVER get back on our feet the way we did in the years following the Great Depression (recognizing that FDR stalled that recovery by seven years according to economists) with his failed liberal policies.  We were the most productive nation on earth at that time in terms of manufacturing; we were a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation at that time; our citizens were NOT consuming mass welfare the way we overwhelmingly are now, nor would they have stood for the kind of sloth that passes for normalcy today; and we had just won a world war and were frankly the only economy on earth that hadn’t been destroyed.  When we fall now – and we WILL fall in the next twenty years – we will shatter into pieces and those pieces will never be reconstituted.  America will be a relatively insignificant banana republic or group of banana republics.  The day our economy crashes we will lose the status that has allowed us to accumulate such a super massive debt – our status as the world’s reserve currency – and it will all be over for us.

America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy.  All the other major nations and regions – such as Russia, Europe and Asia ARE mentioned.  America has largely already guaranteed that it simply will not matter in the coming years.  We had a vote and literally determined to follow the path of the Dodo bird to certain extinction.  There are famously nine stages of civilization.  Last year we were in the seventh, but this election put us over the top of number eight – we voted for entitlements and to become a dependency-based society.  In our final age, bondage will mean bondage of the very worst kind: bondage to the coming Antichrist.

I neither take comfort nor rejoice in that sad, tragic and pathetic end for America.  I rejoice and take comfort in the fact that God has a plan for His people – and I am one of His people.  I need neither weep nor worry.  My treasure is in heaven and I don’t have to fear how much Obama or the beast who will succeed him will take away on earth.

I have another home to go to – and it will be a far grander land than this one ever was even in its brightest day of promise.  And frankly, my faith in the next land (Heaven) grows stronger even as this one (America) grows weaker and weaker.

But why does it happen?  How did we sink this low?

Our modern media descended from the propaganda of World Wars One And Two.  Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays were men who believed that people could and frankly SHOULD be manipulated.  They believed that a class of cultural elites should anoint themselves to serve as gatekeepers and ensure that their secular humanist worldview and values would be advanced and rival worldviews and values would be defeated.  You simply cannot read the writings of these fathers of journalism and media elitism and not see that common thread in their work.

What I’m saying is that when it comes to journalism and modern media, you cannot say that conservatives ever “lost control” over these institutions – because we never had any control over them to begin with.  They were never anything other than secular humanist and liberal progressive in orientation.  And all it took was for the technology to become sufficiently powerful and all-encompassing that their domination of the media would translate to their being able to dictate to mass culture what to think and what to believe.  And here we are.

The power of media was used against Christianity in 1960 with an incredibly dishonest piece of propaganda titled Inherit the Wind (see also here).  And the order of magnitude in terms of media manipulation has grown by giant leaps and bounds in the over fifty years since.  Most people – the 88 percent above – understand that they are being routinely lied to with outright propaganda.  The problem is that even though they know they’re being brainwashed, they’re STILL being brainwashed.  The media is altering people’s perceptions much the way the constant ocean tide wears away even the rocks let alone the sand; it is the inevitable result of being washed over with lies again and again and again and again, ad infinitum.

How did the secular humanist left gain control over academia?  Christians unwittingly played a giant part in that.  Do you know how many of the first universities in America were founded by Christians?  How about pretty much ALL of them.  Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  That trend continued long into America’s journey as a nation: I just got through reading an excellent article about the incredibly enormous role Christian churches and denominations played in the establishment of virtually all of the schools, universities and hospitals in the American West.  Education was almost ENTIRELY up to Christian churches and denominations.

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us.  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Strike three for conservatives and for the United States of America was when liberals seized control of the government.  They didn’t do it by winning elections; they did it by stacking the government employees with leftwing union thuggery.

FDR said that government employee unions were unAmerican.  And of course he was right.  But as far to the left as FDR was in the 1930s and 1940s, he didn’t even begin to hold a candle to just how radically far the Democrat Party would go to to undermine the United States of America.  FDR said:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Unions are completely dead in America in the private sector, where they have killed jobs and crushed entire industries.  But they dominate government employees.  And if Mitt Romney and Republicans were to have won the election, they would not have been able to significantly change the way government “works” (in quotes because in the vast majority of respects, government doesn’t “work” at all).  That is because virtually every level and layer of government “service” is as dominate by liberals as the kitchen floor of a filthy house is dominated by cockroaches.

You’ve got the government as an entity unto itself whose primary purpose is to create more government, more government jobs and more government workers with more lavish government pensions and benefits that are borne on the backs of the taxpayer.

The aim of the Democrat Party and the aim of the government unions is identical: to explode the size and power of government and to make government employees an elite, privileged class of masters over the rest of society.  Their collective goal is to attain government power that allows them to dominate forever by being able to be able to pick the winners and losers and the victims and villains of society.

And they have largely attained that power.  Once a government bureaucracy is created, it can never be undone; the liberals who own government by what FDR said was an immoral tactic have never allowed it and WILL never allow it.

There’s a reason for this that goes to what I said above about how Christians trained their people to go into the mission field and liberals trained their people to go into government: and that is, for liberals, serving government is tantamount and in fact even greater than serving God.  Liberals have simply flooded government and there is no practical way to purge the influence that even FDR said was illegitimately obtained.

There are other reasons that our culture became toxic and doomed, of course.

“Political correctness” is a huge factor.

Political correctness is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a vast, coordinated effort on the part of the secular humanist, socialist left to change Western culture as we know it by  using rhetoric to redefine it. Early Marxists in Russia designed this game plan long ago and liberals continue to execute the tactic today: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

With the “news” media, with academia and with government at their beck and call, to go along with liberal Hollywood culture, it was easy to tell people what to think.

Liberals have used boycotts to devastating effect; while conservatives say boycotts are wrong and refuse to call for them.  The result of this disparity is that our businesses are vulnerable and exposed to incredible pressure from the left, while liberal businesses are completely safe.

I think of two recent examples of how the difference between liberalism and conservatism works in the form of two athletes.

Phil Mickelson “sinned” by saying that the tax burden that Democrats were demanding he pay – basically 63 percent of everything he makes – was far too high, and that he was fleeing the Socialist Republic of California as a result.  Do you think it’s unreasonable for Mickelson to say that he disagrees that Obama is 63 percent responsible for his success and that he’s only at most 37 percent responsible for his success?  This gets us right back to Obama’s, “you didn’t build that, government did” argument.  Mickelson was so viciously demonized that he went out something like four times to mea culpa and say he was terribly wrong to say stuff like that.  On my count he came out four separate times begging people to please quit hating him for believing he had a right to express his views in Amerikkka.

The second recent example is San Francisco 49er player Chris Culliver, who expressed his opinion that he would not personally feel comfortable having an open homosexual player on the team.  And of course, he was quickly broken as liberals demanded he literally be fired for expressing his views.

How many celebrities have been celebrated and adored by the liberal media culture for saying that celebrities should “pay their fair share” with high taxes and that homosexuality is so wonderful it’s even better than sliced bread?  Were they forced to do a perp walk and apologize for their remarks?  Not a chance.

You see, here’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Conservatives believe that people – even liberals – have a right to express their views and beliefs.  Conservatives believe that our nation with its freedoms and liberty should not persecute people merely for expressing a viewpoint that they disagree with.  Liberals, on the other hand, are fascists who brutally and viciously attack anyone who doesn’t bow down to their agenda.  You do NOT have the freedom of self-expression if you use that freedom to say something that liberals don’t like.  They will come after you with stunning hatred if you try to do so.

Liberals are people who routinely shout down everyone with whom they disagree.  You do not have the right to say anything that offends them.  They will simply come after you in full-fledged fascisti mode.

Genuine tolerance is a weapon that liberals have turned against conservatives.  As liberal activist Saul Alinsky – who devoted his book to Satan – said:

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

And of course liberals like Al Gore have no “book of rules” to have to live up to.  They can preach radical environmentalism and demonize oil for years.  They can say that people ought to pay their “fair share” of taxes.  And then – like Al Gore – they can sell out to a terrorist “journalism” network funded entirely by oil money and try to structure the deal so they don’t have to pay Obama’s sky-high tax rates.  But because they always parroted the liberal vision – no matter how hypocritically – they’re on hallowed ground with the vast majority of the propaganda machine a.k.a. journalism in America.

Liberals are currently decrying guns, because everybody knows that human beings are merely farm animals incapable of exercising personal responsibility or self-restraint.  Guns must be taken away from the law-abiding even if it makes them utterly helpless in a deteriorating society because that’s the only solution that liberals will allow.  I submit that there aren’t too many guns; there are too many abortions.  There aren’t to many guns; there’s too much pornography.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too little respect for the dignity of human life that the abortion culture and the pornography culture that liberals fought so hard to institute guarantees.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too much lawless disregard for justice that liberals (the ACLU being your classic example) have produced throughout our legal culture.

We kicked God’s butt right out of our schools, banned prayer, banned the Ten Commandments with its “Thou shalt not murder” and we’re just astonished that the children who grew up godless in liberal indocrination facilities a.k.a. our public school system would actualize the disgusting hatred of life that liberalism produced in their empty souls.

And now liberals are exploiting the gun violence that their policies produced in the first place to implement their next step in the Stalinist takeover of America.

And that’s why we’ve lost.  And why the America we stood for is now basically eradicated.

And those three strikes plus are why America is going to go down and go down hard.  King Theoden ultimately won; America is ultimately going to lose and then the beast will come just as God told us would happen.  Theoden’s enemies were outside the walls; America’s enemies are very much within.

Question: Why Is ‘War On Terror’ Talk Banned By Obama Even As He Keeps Demagoguing The Bogus ‘War On Women’???

September 13, 2012

Dennis Miller raised that question last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and it’s a damn good one.

Obama banned the term “war on terror”:

Obama administration says goodbye to ‘war on terror’
US defence department seems to confirm use of the bureaucratic phrase ‘overseas contingency operations’
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 March 2009 13.40 EDT

The war on terror, George Bush once declared, “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. But Barack Obama‘s administration, it appears, has ended it rather more discreetly – via email.

A message sent recently to senior Pentagon staff explains that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror (Gwot) … please pass this on to your speechwriters”. Instead, they have been asked to use a bureaucratic phrase that could hardly be further from the fiery rhetoric of the months immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The global war on terror is dead; long live “overseas contingency operations”.

Rumours of the imminent demise of the war on terror had been circulating for some time, and some key officials have been mentioning “overseas contingency operations” for weeks. The US defence department email, obtained by the Washington Post, seems to confirm the shift, although the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews the public testimony of administration personnel in advance, denied reports that it had ordered an across-the-board change in language.

[..]

Since taking office, Obama has taken several concrete steps to shift direction, ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the CIA’s secret prisons, and moving to end harsh interrogation practices.

“Declaring war on a method of violence was like declaring war on amphibious warfare,” said Jeffrey Record, a strategy expert at the US military’s Air War College in Alabama.

“Also, it suggested that there was a military solution, and that we were at war with all practitioners of terrorism, whether they threatened American interests or not. ‘War’ is very much overused here in the United States – on crime, drugs, poverty. Everything has to be a war. We would have been much smarter to approach terrorism as the Europeans do, as a criminal activity.”

Let’s be clear: the primary motivation of abandoning the term “war on terror” was appalling political correctness.  Obama doesn’t want to alienate; he wants to be “inclusive.”

Obama is so inclusive to terrorists, in fact, that he refused to label the murderous rampage by Major Nidal Hassan a “terrorist attack.”  It doesn’t matter if he was heard screaming “Allahu Aqbar!” as he opened fire or that he had business cards that described himself as a “soldier of Allah” or that he had had numerous email chats with a known al Qaeda terrorist recruiter.  It was just an act of “workplace violence,” that’s all folks.  Nothing to see here.

Except when it comes to Republicans, of course.  Obama doesn’t want to insult terrorists, but he is fine with demonizing basically half of the American people.  So whether “war” is “overused” or not, Obama is quite happy to use the term to pour liquid hate on Republicans and then try to set that hate on fire.

“The war on women” is a lie from the devil and from the Democrat Party – unless they’re using it to talk about themselves.  See also here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.

Interestingly, Obama defines “women” as SINGLE women.  Married women – who are voting for Mitt Romney by a margin of 55-40% – clearly do not count as “women” in Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s universe.  It’s kind of like the black Republicans who have somehow forfeited their “blackness” and therefore merit the hateful label “Uncle Toms” or “Aunt Jemimas.”

Nor are women who actually don’t hate their babies and want to keep them, given that most of the demon-possessed lies from the left revolve around abortion.

Just why is it called PLANNED PARENTHOOD given that its central “service” involves a profound LACK of PLANNING and an abject AVOIDANCE of PARENTHOOD?

In order to count as a “woman,” you’ve got to be single, you’ve got to hate babies, you’ve got to be a needy, whiny, clingy, bitter girl who hates men but loves Obama and his big government as surrogate husband (as long as you don’t actually have a “husband,” mind you).  You’ve got to think birth control costs $3,000.  You’ve got to think that society owes you that $3,000 birth control for free.  Especially if you choose to go to a Catholic university.  Because you’ve got to think literally that EVERYBODY OWES YOU that free $3,000 birth control.  You’ve got to demand “the right to choose” an abortion right up to when your baby is literally being born so you can use your “right to choose” partial birth abortion.  Also for free, of course.  And that You’ve got to think that all Republicans – NONE of whom have ever had mothers, wives or daughters, btw – want to put women in chains right next to black people.  Basically you’ve got to be a complete idiot to count as a “woman” as far as Democrats are concerned.  Otherwise, kindly refrain from considering yourself a “woman.”

Just remember the rule: it’s hateful to use the term “war on terror.”  But it’s just as hateful not to use the term “war on women.”  Because that’s just how evil and idiotic and hypocritical Democrats (of either gender) truly are.

Obama Honors Osama Bin Laden As True Muslim Holy Warrior, Gives Him State Funeral

May 4, 2011

Now, let me get this out from the start: if I were the president, I would have had some real hungry pigs loaded aboard the USS Carl Vinson (ala Silence of the Lambs II), fed them Osama bin Laden’s body, and then invited every single family member of those killed on 9/11 for a barbeque lunch at the White House featuring those pigs that had so recently eaten Osama bin Laden’s body as the main course.  Perhaps we would have dined under a giant banner that read, “Osama bin Laden: he was the most evil human being of the last half century, but now he’s just finger lickin’ good.”

Way over the top, I know.  My main point is that giving Osama bin Laden a Muslim burial – and literally a state funeral aboard a United States Navy aircraft carrier – was every bit as much going way over the top the other way.

As ABC reports it:

The corpse was taken to the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, officials told ABC News. The ceremony, done according to Islamic law, began about 1:10 a.m. today EST and lasted about 45 minutes, according to officials.

Traditional washing of the body was followed by wrapping in white sheets. A military officer read religious remarks that were translated by a native Arabic speaker, then bin Laden was eased into the sea.

Officials said no other alternatives were available.

As for the “no other alternatives were available,” that’s just a load of crap.  Consider my pig-feast, for example.

Here’s the thing.  Barack Obama and too many liberals to bother to mention have repeatedly lectured us that terrorists such as Osama bin Laden are NOT Muslim; they have somehow taken Islam hostage, yada yada yada.

Okay, fine. So DON’T GIVE THE RAT BASTARD A MUSLIM FUNERAL THEN!!!  MAKE HIM PIG FOOD INSTEAD!!!

It seems rather obvious that Osama bin Laden is very much officially a “Muslim” now as far as the United States is concerned, given his method of burial.

And that means that Hairy Back Guy:

Night of the Living Dead Guy:

 And Wascally Wabbit Guy:

Are all real Muslims, too.

And so now and forevermore, please stop telling us they’re not real Muslims.

It has occurred to me if Osama bin Laden was a “Christian,” there is no way in hell Obama would have demanded that the US Navy – which I’m sure has better things to do than wash a scumbag’s body and chant over it for 45 minutes – would have given him a “Christian” burial.

And it flat out amazes me that even the most despicable Muslim who ever lived (with the exception of Muhammad himself) gets more respect by Obama than a Christian ever would.

I couldn’t be more sick of liberals who demand total separation of church and state wherever and whenever Christianity is concerned, and then provide every possible honor to a terrorist slimeball psycho mass murderer of American citizens.

It’s the same phenomenon with liberal “artists” who go the the Nth degree to mock Christianity, but would never dare to do the same thing with Islam.  These hypocrite cowards just make me want to spew.

I’m fine with burying the Osama bin Laden at sea, for what it’s worth.  But as another suggestion to show that another alternative was certainly available, how about bringing a battleship along and stuffing bid Laden into one of the 16-inch guns and firing off a salvo?  And instead of a Koranic sendoff carefully translated into Arabic, the master chief in charge of the main battery could provide a detailed sermon describing just how far over the horizon bin Laden would likely fly on a 300 kilogram powder charge. 

I don’t have a scintilla of doubt that the Navy crewmen wouldn’t have minded spending 45 minutes prepping for THAT funeral at all.

Is It Racist To Suggest Obama Is Stupid? Ask Racist Liberals Who Spent 8 Years Calling George Bush Stupid

April 29, 2011

I can find a thousand pull quotes from “journalists” who serve as the court eunuchs for the Democrat Party, but I’ll just stick with one from Bob Schieffer:

“I want to go on to what Donald Trump said after he said ‘this is out’ and everything. He said, ‘we need to look at his grades and see if he was a good enough student to get into Harvard Law School.’ That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black. This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing. We can hope that that kinda comes to an end too.”

I mean, obviously, Schieffer is 100% correct.  I mean, the left would NEVER suggest that Republican president might be stupid, right?  And so for conservatives to suggest that Obama might not be the sharpest tack in the box can only be a code for “racism.”  Right?

Well, not quite.

The left tore into George Bush the way one of Michael Vick’s pit bulls tore into a piece of bloody meat.  And one of their favorite memes was the one that Bush was stupid.

Which demonstrates by their own warped, depraved and perverted logic that liberals are racist.

And there are a gazillion articles like this that asked questions and came to conclusions about George Bush that must not dare be asked and answered about Barack Obama.  [Updated, 4/30]  Here’s one that shows that the attack on Bush’s intelligence – which we now know is a racist, racist, racist thing to do – was so widespread that it essentially formed the centerpiece of the Al Gore campaign:

Gore Camp Targets Bush’s Intelligence
By Carter M. Yang
ABC News, Oct 9

With his truthfulness under fire and his opponent gaining in the polls, Al Gore’s surrogates are openly questioning George W. Bush’s intelligence.

Since this weekend, the Gore team has been ratcheting up its efforts to paint Bush as “confused,” “bumbling,” “babbling” and “ignorant.”

“George W. Bush seems incapable of talking about the important issues in this campaign in a coherent way,” Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani said today, just one in a series of statements from the Democratic candidate’s team drawing attention to the Texas governor’s mispronunciations and misstatements on the campaign trail.

“George Bush is routinely unable to string together a coherent sentence to explain his own proposals,” another Gore spokesman, Douglas Hattaway, said in an earlier statement this weekend. “Americans will decide whether Bush’s uncertain command of the facts and his garbled language bear on his ability to be an effective leader.”

Could that argument only be applied to Bush?  Let’s put that ugly little critter to bed:

We know that Obama uses his teleprompter far more than George Bush or any other president in the history of the republic.

We know that Obama even needs his prompter to speak in elementary schools:

We also know that Obama isn’t exactly coherent without the “TOTUS.”

And we know that in fact the man is an idiot:

“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

But how dare you acknowledge the obvious, no matter how obvious it is.  It’s RACIST to recognize the obvious.

Because, you see, liberals souls swim in a deep racist ocean, and the unadulterated hypocrisy which quintessentially defines them means that you can tee off on a white man, demonize him for his stupidity, his values, his greed, etc., but you must grovel in the sackcloth and ashes of white guilt at the feet of the black man.

Well, as long as that black man is a liberal.  Becuase if he’s a conservative, liberals are allowed – encouraged, even – to allow the racism that also defines them full-throttled expression:

Liberals often respond by pointing out that it isn’t just black liberals or Hispanic liberals who constantly demonize white men; white liberals demonize white men, too.  So it clearly can’t be racist.

I respond by pointing out that just as Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew and Adolf Hitler was in all probability a self-loathing Jew, white liberals are merely caucasian-hating caucasians:

Take Karl Marx.  The man was profoundly anti-Semitic.  He was also a Jew.

Here are some quotes from the VERY Jewish “intellectual” Karl Marx:

“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)

“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)

“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)

“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)

And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?

Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show
Adolf Hitler is likely to have had Jewish and African roots, DNA tests have shown.
By Heidi Blake 6:25AM BST 24 Aug 2010
 
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.

Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race?  I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.

And it doesn’t surprise me at all that rabid leftwing socialists like Marx and Hitler would be the models for radical leftwing socialists right here and right now in America.

And if you want to see naked racism, I’ll gladly show you naked racism.

We constantly hear conservatives and Republicans compared to the Ku Klux Klan.  Because liberals are either too stupid or too dishonest (and I personally believe both too stupid and too dishonest) to understand that the Klu Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of THE DEMOCRAT PARTY and in fact the Klan continued to be profoundly and directly associated with the Democrat party well into the 20th century.  And all the Democrat Party did was understand that if they couldn’t own black people by slavery, they could eventually own them by political patronage through welfare and socialistic redistributionism.

What did Frederick Douglass, one of the great moral intellectuals of any race, have to say about what is THE policy of the Democrat Party back when “stupid” white men were literally dying by the hundreds of thousands to free the slaves?

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”  On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

Liberals are people who project and mirror their own hate.  And they reduce human beings to the absolute lowest common denominator, rather than try to lift people up and help them become better.  Bottom line.

Racism and race-baiting isn’t the last resort of the left; it is their first knee-jerk response.  And that is because THEY are the racists.  Racism defines them; it is the essence of their beings.  Whereas Martin Luther King dreamed of a society in which his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”  But liberals angrily refuse to do that, and demand that color is everything, and that everything must be viewed through the lenses of race and racism.

I couldn’t be more disgusted with the vileness that characterizes the left.  I have as much right to call Barack Obama a stupid man as any liberal had to call George Bush a stupid man.  And you can easily identify as a racist the person who shouts that I don’t have that right.

And I don’t give a flying fig what color your skin is, and what color the skin of the person you’re defending or denouncing is.  If you play that game, you are a racist.  And a nasty hypocrite racist at that.

Why Western Civilization Is On The Verge Of Self-Destuction. In A Nutshell.

February 8, 2011

I came across the following article on Yahoo:

Prince Speaks for Kardashian-Weary Nation: ‘Get Off the Stage!’
Posted Tue Feb 8, 2011 8:18am PST by Caryn Ganz

Last night at Madison Square Garden, Prince did what so many of us want to do, but simply cannot do: make Kim Kardashian go away. At the end of each of the singer’s Welcome 2 America concerts in New York, he’s invited VIPs onstage to dance — and in Cyndi Lauper’s case, belt a few notes. Yesterday one of his stellar backup singers took Kim by the hand and led her onstage, saying, “Look who I got.” Prince busted a move; Kim stood and laughed. So he dismissed her with a neck-snapping, “Get off the stage!” as the crowd roared. “Welcome 2 America,” he added, scanning the audience for another girl who “can get busy.”

Stars who have successfully boogied with Prince at MSG include Sherri Sheppard, Naomi Campbell, Alicia Keys, Whoopi Goldberg, Jamie Foxx, Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, and Spike Lee. Yes, Sherri Sheppard, the same woman who horrified Prince on national TV by proclaiming on “The View,” “I have wanted to make love to you for my whole life.” He’s even serenaded Leighton Meester with “I Love You But I Don’t Trust You Anymore.”

Kim’s defense, mounted on Twitter (of course): “I was so nervous I froze when Prince touched me!” She added that the Purple One gave her another chance, and she did, indeed, get funky. “This time I redeemed myself! We all danced while Prince played the piano! Wow! What a night!”

In truth, she should feel honored — because of Prince’s staunch anti-Internet stance, no fresh footage of him has managed to hit the web in years. In 2007, the singer even got into a fight with his fans when he pulled down images of everything from Prince-inspired tattoos to photos of his album covers — and when his devotees got angry, he wrote a diss track called “PFUnk” that includes the line, “I love all y’all, don’t you ever mess with me no more.” Thanks to the Kardashian smackdown, we got another glimpse of our favorite funkateer in action!

Well, there’s nothing about this article that is remotely important or meaningful.

What IS a testament to the rapidly approaching extinction of the late great USA and the Western Civilization it epitomizes is at the bottom:

The word “vacuous” comes to mind.  Can you not understand why radical Islam is exploding, given such a completely airheaded altnernative?

And yet this story came out just today, and 2,841 people believed it was so significant that they felt the need to comment about it.  And, good Lord, I came back three minutes later just to recheck, and the number had risen to 2,918 comments.

Now, I don’t waste my time with this kind of mind-sucking drivel.  But I can’t remember reading an important article about anything even remotely important that fired up this level of hype and attention.

It’s like the Animal Farm society is already here, living and breathing, in our midst.  And its zeitgeist has taken over our feeble little atrophied minds.  And every day, there is less and less and less about this civilization that is worth fighting for.  It has become a hollow facade, with everything that truly made it great carved out by political correctness, the postmodernist purge of truth and meaning and the progressive social-engineering doctrine of mutliculturalism.

The spine that made everything great in our democracy possible has been ripped out of our civilization.  The document that made our Constitution possible said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Now nothing remains to provide a foundation for anything.

Except, of course, whether Kim Kardashian should have been kicked off the stage or not.

We are in a great sucking vortex of moral idiocy – trapped in a depraved culture that has tragically become like a giant reciprocating engine that just drives us downward and ever downward dumber and dumber with every stroke of its constantly pumping cylinders.

The Book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible sums it up marvelously in its second verse: “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities!  All is vanity.”

The beast is coming, the Antichrist warned about by that same Bible for some 2,600 years.  Everything is amazingly in place, including the technology for the mysterious “mark of the beast.”  Our rotted world system will soon collapse.  And when it implodes, it will do so with stunning speed in a matter of days.  Chaos will follow.  Economic collapse, wars and fighting, disease and death, just as Revelation 6 describes.  And this political beast, this Antichrist, this big government visionary will emerge onto the scene claiming to have all the answers.  Everything he does will appear to have the magic touch.  And the whole world will literally worship him in place of God.

We have already had a taste of this frenzied idolatry in the person of Barack Hussein Obama.  But what is coming will dwarf the empty “hope and change” of Obama.

And does anyone seriously believe that this present generation of vacuous amoral fools won’t worship him just as the Book of Revelation says?

What the Bible prophesies is no longer a collection of fanciful fable; it has become the most reasonable description of where are world is truly headed.

Leftwing Violence And Media Propaganda/Coverup Continues Unabated

January 27, 2011

How long did it take for liberals and their media lackeys to blame Republicans and conservatives for Jared Loughner and the “climate of hate” that resulted in the Tucson, Arizona shootings?  Probably about two minutes, but New York Slimes columnist Paul Krugman was the first “mainstream” “journalist” to viciously attack the right two hours after the event (evidence not required).

The left immediately cited Sarah Palin having used a map “targeting” Democrats.  It didn’t matter that it was DEMOCRATS who invented these “targeting maps.”  Nor did it matter that the Democrat PARTY – not just some politician who wasn’t even in office anymore like Sarah Palin – had used these maps themselves (both the Democratic Leadership Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are were discovered to have used such maps).

The left immediately attacked Sarah Palin because one of the vulnerable districts that Sarah Palin “targeted” for defeat in the midterm elections was Gabrielle Gifford’s district.  It didn’t matter that the powerful liberal site DailyKos had similarly targeted Gabrille Giffords because she wasn’t leftwing enough for them.  And even more, it didn’t matter that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas took his hate to a whole new level beyond anything Sarah Palin approached by saying of Gabrielle Giffords, “she’s dead to me.”

Nor did it matter that if anything at all, shooter Jared Loughner exhibted FAR more characteristics of a leftwinger than he did of a rightwinger (and see also here).

You see, for any of the above to matter, the left would have to have some shred of virtue.  And they simply don’t have any virtue at all.  They are liars without honesty, shame or integrity.  Hypocrisy and deceit are pathological.  Take these things away from a liberal, and he or she would vanish.  Because it’s all they are.

Even as the left denounced the right for the “climate of hate,” they were frothing at the mouth with their own special climate of hate.

Now, for the record I don’t really mind the left spewing their hate.  I think it helps reveal who and what they are.  What I DO mind – and what got me into blogging – is the massive hypocrisy in which these people constantly denounce us for hate when they are so full of it themselves.  These are people who have practiced hatred and violence for decades, and when we respond to their jackboots in our faces, they denounce us as practicing hate.  As if the victim who fights the attacker is every bit as guilty as the attacker for any violence.

So it was rather revealing that the only person who was in any way, shape or form connected with the Tucson Arizona shooting who actually threatened to kill somebody was a LIBERAL threatening a TEA PARTY spokesman (and see also here).  The self-described LIBERAL took a picture of the tea party member and said, “You’re dead.”

President Obama gave one of his “just words” speeches filled with flowery but empty rhetoric in which he condemned the harsh polarized political climate that he himself was instrumental in creating.  And, of course, Obama himself hypocritically loaded up the Tucson memorial service with his own image and his own political sloganeering in marked contrast to his message.

But the left is vicious and vile and venomous.  So it took them no time at all to show their demonic nature.

Republicans tried to play by the new rules.  They called a break (and a truce) for a week and halted their calender in an important time that the opposition party would ordinarily want to use to full advantage prior to a State of the Union speech.  And they toned down their language, for example, changing the word “kill” in “job killing” to “crush” or “destroy.” It was a useless gesture, I know, but the Republicans were doing what they could to practice civility according to the long laundry list of words that political-correctness-embracing Democrats had decided was off limits.

But, of course, Democrats paid no attention to the rules they insisted that Republicans follow.  Controlling liberal hate is like controlling a rabid dog in full-frothing mode; it just doesn’t happen.  So it should be no surprise that Democrats would be unable to control themselves in their hateful dialogue even while Republicans tried to jump through the rhetorical hoops Democrats demanded.

Tennessee Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen invoked the most evil event in human history to attack Republicans on the House floor:

“They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels,” Cohen said. “You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing.” And Congressman Cohen didn’t stop there.

“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it–believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover,” Cohen said.

Now, keep in mind, Sarah Palin got demonized by the mainstream media for having maps that did the exact same thing that Democrat maps had been doing for years.  Did the media come unglued and denounce Cohen for his despicable hate?  Nope.  They put it in a “broader context,” which means that to the extent that they didn’t simply ignore it altogether, they explained it away.

Fellow Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee had her own version of attacking Republicans for a Holocaust to be if they dare to vote according to their principles:

“Frankly, I would just say to you, this is about saving lives. Jobs are very important; we created jobs,” Jackson Lee said. “But even the title of their legislation, H.R. 2, ‘job-killing’ — this is killing Americans if we take this away, if we repeal this bill.”

Okay.  So Republicans are “killing Americans.”  But other than that they’re decent people.  Really.

There’s your new “civility” for you.  It’s Democrats demonizing Republicans for what Democrats have actually done more than Republicans.  And heaping hate on top of rabid hate even as they hypocritically denounce Republicans for the climate of hate that Republicans are of course responsible for.

And the media will play that game all day.  Because, contrary to Steve Cohen’s remark, the new “Jospeh Goebbels” in this country are journalists.

So we’ve got stuff like this: a leftist radical who acted on his radical leftism tried to murder a politician who wasn’t far leftist enough.  He wrote, “How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?”

This radical leftist slashed the throat of a college dean out of the mistaken belief that he was the governor of Tennessee.  It happened last September.  And nobody reported it simply because, well, they couldn’t figure out a way to turn this radical leftist into a Republican.

But they sure were on top of the story that Sarah Palin had a map that you needed to know about, didn’t they???

And if Democrats had a stack of maps themselves, well, you just didn’t need to know that, the self-appointed media gate-keepers figured.

Nor did you need to know about that petty little leftist would-be assassin.

Nor do you really need to know anything that contradicts the mainstream – liberal, of course – media message.

Dishonest Propagandist Government Network NPR Fires Juan Williams For Muslim Remark

October 21, 2010

Mainstream media outlets an d the apparatchiks who staff them reach low after low; and then keep right on digging.

Monday night Juan Williams appeared on Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Program and said:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going.  But I think you’re right.  I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot.  You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country.  But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Now, I remember also when the Times Square bomber was at court — this was just last week — he said: “the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood.” I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.

NPR is basically firing Juan Williams the day after getting $1.8 million from far-leftist billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations to buy at least 100 “journalists” at NPR.

If that isn’t blatant enough, the same day far leftist radical George Soros gave that $1.8 million to NPR, he similarly gave another million dollars to the profoundly leftwing Media Matters, with the express purpose of attacking Fox News.  From Newsmax:

Billionaire currency titan George Soros, long a patron of liberal political causes in the United States, is giving $1 million to Media Matters in what he says is an attempt to stop the growing popularity of Fox News.

And, just to complete the picture, Media Matters proceeds to tell us the real sin of Juan Williams – appearing on Fox News – as it turns its demonization campaign to Mara Liasson.  From millionaire Media Matters:

News that Juan Williams’ contract with NPR was terminated over comments he made about Muslims while appearing on Fox News shines a spotlight on the radio network’s evergreen controversy: Its continued affiliation with Fox News. Specifically, NPR’s Mara Liasson and her long-running association with Fox News has often raised questions.  This might be the proper time for NPR to finally address that thorny issue.

So liberals, being the dishonest lying slime that they are, can’t just say, “We’re firing Juan Williams because he’s appearing on the most trusted name in news, which and we just can’t have that.”

A study last year by George Mason University stated, “Our results show a very significant liberal bias.”  And identified Fox News as the most balanced.  NPR wants bias, and they most certainly don’t want balance.

They don’t have the decency to say that former Nazi collaborator George Soros bought them 100 paid-in-fill propagandists, and probably instructed NPR to clean house of anyone who won’t properly march to his goose-step.

Instead NPR relied upon the favorite tactic of the left – the politics of personal destruction – in order to try to personally destroy Juan Williams’ character and integrity.

That’s just the kind of slimy reptiles these people are.

And to add “slimy” to “reptilian,” the NPR CEO issued a comment that implied that Juan Williams needed to see a psychiatrist.  Which is to say that that this woman – who just fired the only black journalist on her entire network – should fire herself for bigotry.

A few things come to mind as I think about the craven excuse NPR used to get rid of Juan Williams:

1) Juan Williams was fired for telling the truth, of all things.  You just can’t have truth in liberal “journalism.”  Because truth is an embarrassment to the left.

A Pew survey documented that journalists describe themselves as being even MORE LIBERAL than they were in the past.  Which is frankly amazing, given how liberal journalists were in the past.

NPR’s own ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, has acknowledged that NPR held a bias.

So NPR fired Juan Williams under the guise that Williams took a “personal public positions on [a] controversial issue.” But that wasn’t why he was fired, or else NPR journalist Nina Totenberg would have been fired for wishing that Republican Jessie Helms or his grandchildren would get AIDS.  That wasn’t why he was fired, or NPR journalist Andrei Codrescu who called the Christian doctrine of the Rapture “crap” wouldn’t still be part of the NPR team.  That wasn’t why he was fired, or else Cokie Roberts would have been fired for saying that “Actually, Beck is worse than a clown. He’s more like a terrorist who believes he has discovered the One True Faith, and condemns everyone else as a heretic. And that makes him something else as well — a traitor to the American values he professes so loudly to defend.” It very clearly and obviously wasn’t that Juan Williams expressed a “public position on a controversial issue” that got him fired; it was that he expressed such a position that did not conform to doctrinaire liberal political correctness.  And in particular, it was that he appeared on Fox News, a network that has the audacity to actually allow conservatives to offer (along with many liberals) their point of view.

Further, “government-funded” and “journalism” go together like ketchup and milkshakes.  NPR and PBS stand as embodiments of disgrace to journalism.  And when you add “George Soros” to “government funded,” you get something that is quintessentially dangerous to both journalism and democracy itself.

2) Every mainstream media outlet is fundamentally hypocritical as well as dishonest regarding Islam as the “religion of peace.”

On the one hand, we are constantly told that Islam is peaceful.  And that anyone who fears Islam is some kind of a bigot.

And yet, on the other hand, the same “journalists” and news outlets that say this to us are themselves so piss-in-their-pants afraid of this peaceful religion becoming über-violent at the drop of a hat that they constantly censor themselves lest they end up as terrorist murder victims.

Case in point: the Washington Post, the Denver Post, and many other mainstream media papers, refused to allow the following Non Sequitur cartoon:

“Piss Christ” – an image of Jesus Christ on a cross in a jar of urine – okay.  A cartoon that doesn’t even show Muhammad?  Not okay.

Why?  Because the people the leftist journalists so dramatically insist are “peaceful” will launch a murderous jihad if they feel insulted or offended in any way, shape, or form.

If NPR, the New York Times, the “ladies” of The View, or anyone else, wants to tell me that Muslims are peaceful, or that Islam is the religion of peace, let them publish pictures of an image of The Prophet immersed in a jar of urine.  So we can see Islamic “tolerance” in action.

And don’t let them hide and change their identities like cartoonist/journalist Molly Norris recently did, because THEY HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THESE PEACE-LOVING MUSLIMS, DO THEY???

The fact of the matter is that the very mainstream media news outlets that are the most vocal in telling us that fear of Islam equals bigotry are in point of fact the most terrified of Islam.  And journalists have literally bowed down to the point of becoming the most pathetic form of useful idiots out of fear of the thing they constantly tell the American people they must not be afraid of.

3) NPR, in firing Juan Williams, committed a terrorist act itself.  With this firing as their “jihadist propaganda bomb.”

I think that’s what Rush Limbaugh was getting at when he started referring to Muslims today as “Middle Eastern liberals.”

Let’s face it.  This wasn’t just about Juan Williams.  This was about any journalist who dares to cross the line from propaganda to truth.  If you tell the truth – especially on the most trusted network in news – they will bury you.

The idea was to strike terror in any journalist who would say, “I’m going to be objective for once in my life.”

I always got the sense that Juan Williams was both a personally gracious man and a straight shooter who called it as he saw it.

Now, having said all of that, I found most of Juan Williams’ offerings to be frankly idiotic.  And if the man was to be fired by anyone, it should have been by Fox News for offering mostly stupid, doctrinaire liberal crap.

Instead, he was fired by the left for telling the truth, and for appearing on a network these First Amendment-despising, “Fairness Doctrine” propagandists despise.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 632 other followers