Posts Tagged ‘Sean Penn’

Hypocrite Liberalism, Where Leftist Sean Penn’s Racist Son Calls A Black Reporter The N-Word While MLK-Marching Charleton Heston Gets Demonized

March 29, 2013

According to the tenants of liberalism, this is fine:

Say What? Sean Penn’s Son Calls Black Photographer ‘N**er’ and ‘Fa**ot’
Mar 27, 2013
By Ruth Manuel-Logan

Hollywood A-Lister Sean Penn was once notorious for his explosive temper but now his son, Hopper (pictured right), has apparently followed suit.

Well, somewhat.

The younger Penn is accused of resorting to vicious and racist name-calling after he got into an altercation with a random Black photographer who confronted the pair as they entered a medical building, reports TMZ.

The nasty encounter between the photographer (pictured) and the 19-year-old was captured on video.  Hopper is seen pushing the unidentified man and this is followed by a face-to-face confrontation where the hot-headed teen is heard spewing the words, “F**k you,  you’re a f**king fa**ot…shut up you fu**ing ni**er.”

During the raucous, police just happened to be in the vicinity and overheard what had transpired between Hopper and the photographer. When officers questioned the shutterbug about what had happened, he just sloughed off the argument and refused to press charges.

Yes, he did say that.  On camera, no less.  With his words being recorded.  For the record, without the asterisks, Sean Penn’s apple that didn’t fall very far from the tree shouted, “You’re a fucking faggot.  Shut up you fucking nigger!”

Now, of course, if it had been Sarah Palin’s kid, imagine the rabid-cockroach feeding frenzy the press would have had.  You would have thought Sarah herself had been caught on tape mouthing those obscenities if it had been her kid who had said that.  She would have been persona non grata.  You know, the way the left already treats her.

Instead, it’s yawnsville.  You know, much the same way that famous liberal actor and loud-mouthed punk Alex Baldwin “a rude little pig.”  Which you’d think would be, you know, a WAR ON WOMEN.

Hell, you can even slaughter dogs after you’ve mangled them by forcing them to fight with other dogs as long as you belong to the “permanent ward of the liberal State” class.  As Michael Vick didRush Limbaugh can’t become a part owner of an NFL team because he’s a Republican and Republicans are evil, but people who force dogs to fight to their deaths and then viciously slaughter the ones who aren’t vicious enough are peachy dandy as long as they’re black.  The media falsifies stories to demonize the former while ignoring the truth to celebrate the latter.  You can get caught red-handed committing adultery with whores in the scores, like Tiger Woods did.  And Obama will still play golf with you during one of his countless vacations.  Why not?  Obama is pissing on marriage by replacing it with sodomy; so why not further piss on it by endorsing the crown prince of all adulterers???

No one is ever to be punished for their words or their behavior except Republicans, you see.  Because Democrats despise actual morality and view the world through a rabid political prism that Stalin would have admired.

It’s Charleton Heston – the first famous actor to put his stand with the civil rights movement and march with Martin Luther King when people were getting beaten BY DEMOCRATS – who should be tormented in the “fundamentally transformed” world of liberalism.  Even from beyond the grave by worthless punks like Jim Carrey who is upset that anybody else should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves with the way his ARMED SECURITY has guns to protect him with.  But, what the hell – he’s a conservative so his sacrifical service out of his love for his fellow man should be mocked by a worthless liberal turd.

When I first saw Jim Carrey, I thought he was hilarious.  But by the time I saw his third movie, I realized that he was purely one-dimensional.  And if you’ve seen one of his films, you’ve pretty much seen his entire repertoire.  Unlike, say, Charleton Heston – an actual ACTOR.

Greg Gutfeld of Fox News’ “The Five” has destroyed Carrey.  He pointed out that Carrey attacked Heston because he didn’t think he could lose an argument with a dead man.  But the funny thing is THAT HE DID LOSE AN ARGUMENT WITH A DEAD MAN.  Because a dead Charleton Heston is worth a 16.7 trillion Jim Carreys (or however many trillions Obama’s national dead is at now).

The quintessential essence of the left is abject moral hypocrisy.  If you are a Democrat, you are a hypocrite; if you are a liberal Democrat, you are a tyrannosaurus hypocrite on megasteroids.  Whether it’s about racism or guns or taxes or any other damn thing under the sun of their fascism.

This is an amazing time when the truth is urinated upon while liars and their lies are beloved.

The day is coming when liberals are going to stand before a just and holy God and find out the hard way that morality is a real thing and that God will judge them according to His Word that they mock rather than their self-serving standard of political correctness.

That day will be so beautiful that it’s worth wading through all the liberal ugliness and filth to get to.

Update, 3/29/13: I wrote this piece to highlight the galling and appalling constant piss of liberal hypocrisy.  I have Jim Carrey to thank for providing more documentation to prove my thesis.  The whiny little turd just released a letter bitching about “vicious slander” from Fox News because this pathetic little turd believes that only HE should have the right to viciously slander people.  He alludes to a lawsuit because this little creep knows that the man whose grave he literally danced on is dead and can’t sue him right back.  Most amazing of all is his assertion that the clear majority of Americans that he mocks and slanders – as proven by the fact that even the majority of DEMOCRATS refuse to embrace his fascist position on guns as evidenced by Harry Reid’s tabling the so-called “assault weapons” ban – are “intolerant” even as this intolerant little creep demonizes them.  What a pygmy little loser.

Advertisements

Liberals Really WOULD Like To Live Under Kim Jong Il’s Regime

May 16, 2010

I’ve said it more than once: a full third of Americans (the liberal third) would continue to support Barack Obama even if he were to lead us into the depths of a North Korea-style totalitarian dictatorship.

Woody Allen would LOVE it if Barack Obama were a dictator.

The Gateway Pundit has the story, via an article in a Spanish publication La Vanguardia:

Woody Allen wants Barack Obama to be dictator for for a few years so that he can completely socialize America. The article published today, May 15, 2010, did not make it into any English-language paper.
The article quotes Allen as saying [first in Spanish, then in English from a trusted reader] –

“Estoy encantado con Obama, creo que es genial. El Partido Republicano debería quitarse de su camino y dejar de intentar herirle.”

Translated to:

“I am pleased with Obama. I think he’s brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him.”

And, the money quote:

“…sería bueno…si pudiera ser un dictador durante algunos años, porque podría hacer un montón de cosas buenas rápidamente.”

The translated quote:

“…it would be good…if he could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly.”

Of course, this comes as a complete shock.
What is it with these leftist loons and their passion for socialist dictators?

Boy, is it ever a shocker that the mainstream media decided the American people didn’t need to know that one of the most famous actors and producers in Hollywood wants us to live in a socialist dictatorship under Barack Obama???

Just imagine for a second if a prominent conservative were to say that it would be nice if George Bush could have total dictatorial powers so that he could put the country into proper order.  Oh, yeah, MSNBC wouldn’t bother to cover THAT little slip.

Clint Eastwood is a well-known Hollywood conservative.  But you don’t see him out there saying, “Boy, that Jorge Rafael Videla Redondo sure put things right in Argentina.  That’s what we need here.”  But you’ve got all kinds of liberals, such as Sean Penn, Danny Glover, and Woody Allen’s fellow wooden-headed liberal Woody Harrelson talking up all the hip socialist dictators.  And give me a nickel for every liberal who ever wore a Che Geuvera T-shirt.

Nazi stands for “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”  The U.S.S.R. stood for “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”  Virtually every single murderous dictatorial regime we have seen in the last 100 years been shoved down our throats by the political left.

Yet somehow it’s invariably been conservatives – who favor a limited government with limited and specifically enumerated powers – who are constantly branded as the “fascists” and “Nazis” – even when both came right from the demonic heart of the political left.

Liberals LOVE fascism.  They love big totalitarian government.  They want government running our lives.  It’s just who they are.

Progressivism Revealed In Words Of Hollywood Liberals Like Tom Hanks And Sean Penn

March 14, 2010

If you want to know what an idea looks like, it is a good idea to look for some examples of that thing in action.

Take “progressivism” or “liberalism,” for instance (please! as the old comic’s joke goes).

What do these people think?  What are they about?  What is their vision for the future, and for this country?  What do they want to do?

Well, why not ask Tom Hanks and Sean Penn, both famed Oscar-winning Hollywood liberals in good standing.

Let’s start with Sean Penn.  That way we can get rid of him faster.

Sean Penn, speaking about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, said:

Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

Well, what SHOULD we think about Hugo Chavez?  Let’s find out.

From May 2007:

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan troops have seized an anti-government television channel’s broadcast equipment, the station said on Sunday, ahead of a controversial midnight EDT/0400 GMT takeover by President Hugo Chavez that will take the broadcaster off the air.

Chavez sparked international criticism with his decision to not renew RCTV’s license and to replace Venezuela’s most-watched channel with a state-backed network that will promote the values of his self-styled socialist revolution.

From November 2008 in the New York Review of Books:

Hugo Chávez Versus Human Rights

On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chávez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government “human rights” official and that we were being expelled from the country.

From July 2009 from the Human Rights Watch (which also includes numerous Venezuelan human rights violations):

Jul 31, 2009

The Venezuelan government has adopted and proposed measures that reduce the ability of government critics to voice their opinions and will seriously limit freedom of expression in Venezuela.

From August 2009 via the UK Telegraph:

Thirteen channels ordered to be closed by the Venezuelan government went off the air on Saturday and more than 200 are expected to close in coming weeks.

The government broadcasting watchdog, Conatel, said that 34 radio outlets would be closed because they failed to comply with regulations.

However, critics claimed the crackdown infringed on freedom of speech and hundreds of protesters demonstrated in Caracas against the closures.

And, of course, that is simply scratching the surface of Hugo Chavez’s abuses of freedom:

According to the U.S. State Department and other official government sources, the Venezuelan government has been guilty of numerous human rights violations under Chavez’s rule.

“Politicization of the judiciary and official harassment of the political opposition and the media characterized the human rights situation during the year,” said the State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights in Venezuela for 2008 that was released last month.

The report credits the Chavez regime with unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, discrimination based on political grounds, widespread corruption at all levels of government, official intimidation and attacks on the independent media.

“According to HRW [Human Rights Watch], ‘Government officials have removed scores of detractors from the career civil service, purged dissidents employees from the national oil company, denied citizens access to social programs based on their political opinions, and denounced critics as subversives deserving of discriminatory treatment,” says the State Department report.

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service also outlined human rights concerns in Chavez’s Venezuela.

“Under the populist rule of President Hugo Chavez … Venezuela has undergone enormous political changes, with a new constitution and unicameral legislature, and a new name for the country, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” states a Feb. 5, 2009 CRS report.

“U.S. officials and human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the deterioration of democratic institutions,” the report adds, “and threats to freedom of expression under President Chavez, who has survived several attempts to remove him from power.”

How about Hugo Chavez in his very own words:

CHAVEZ: “Yes, we are indoctrinating the children from the first grade through college, every grade, private schools. The ideology of the revolution! The ideology of socialism! Our ideology.”

So Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug who is without any doubt suppressing freedom of speech and other human rights in his country.  And if I may now refresh your memory about Sean Penn’s view of the man:

Sean Penn has defended Hugo Chávez as a model democrat and said those who call him a dictator should be jailed.

The Oscar-winning actor and political activist accused the US media of smearing Venezuela’s socialist president and called for journalists to be punished.

Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

This one’s pretty easy.  Sean Penn demonizes the press for smearing a dictator by calling him a “dictator.”  And proceeds to argue that journalists who report the truth about Chavez be jailed.

Which is, of course, precisely what a dictator would do, isn’t it???

You see, Hugo Chavez is a dictator and thug; but he is a LEFTWING dictator and thug (just as most dictatorial thugs almost always are).

So, to put a thousand words into a picture:

Mind you, Sean Penn is not the only Hollywood liberal who has embraced this dictatorial thug. There’s Danny Glover, Oliver Stone, Benicio del Toro, and others.

And earlier progressives eagerly flocked around the communist revolution under Vladimir Lenin and the fascist revolutions under first Benito Mussolini and then Adolf Hitler, too.  Which is to say that this behavior from progressives – as bizarre and as morally insane as it is – is part of a century-old tradition.

Let’s go back to Woodrow Wilson, the father of the progressive movement.  In his unintentionally chilling essay, “Leaders of Men,” Wilson wrote:

The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much – everything – for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question as to the application of force. There are men to be moved: how shall he move them? He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operatesIt is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.

On Wilson’s elitist view, American citizens truly ARE as clay.  They are incapable of understanding anything remotely complex.  And therefore the half-truths (which very often amount to whole lies) of the skillful demagogue become justified:

only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses; they must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half-truth which they can understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.

And how did the father of the progressive movement – who viewed men as uncomprehending clay waiting to be shaped by the half-truths of the skillful demagogue – view the Constitution?  Wilson wrote:

Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws

And uncomprehending clay men do not particularly deserve the inalienable rights bestowed upon them by a Constitution which itself is of little actual value.  Thus the father of the progressive movement wrote:

No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.

And what should be the limitations of power on the government Leviathan – which could easily be stripped of its limiting Constitution – over uncomprehending and infinitely malleable men of clay?  In The State, Wilson said that:

“Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand.”

In his “Congressional Government,” Wilson wrote that:

“I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”

In other words, Progressivism sees no limitations against the power of raw government power.

But I can certainly imagine such power being a negative thing.  As a student of history, I am vividly aware of the fact that in just one such form of government – communism – more than 100 million people were systematically and brutally murdered by their own government during peacetime.

Conservatives favor limited government with limited and well-defined powers.  Which is the exact OPPOSITE of fascistic totalitarian governments.  When you start demanding bigger and bigger and more activistic and socialist government, you begin meandering over to fascist land.

Thus you should understand why it  shouldn’t be surprising that Sean Penn and Danny Glover should think this way about Hugo Chavez.  Chavez is the Great Leader who shapes stupid clay men with his skillful demagoguery; and thus woe be unto any who seek to get in his way.

And, good news for progressives, the magnificent Hugo Chavez’s socialist revolution is coming to America in the form of Barack Hussein Obama:

(CNSNews.com) – Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.

And it’s completely reasonable that Chavez would think this way about Obama.  After all, the American president who did nothing while the Venezuelan dictator nationalized U.S. businesses has done plenty of nationalizing himself.  Which prompted Hugo Chavez to point out:

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

Does the Obama administration share the totalitarian views of Hugo Chavez, and even admire them?  It certainly does, according to the words of Obama’s Diversity czar, Mark Lloyd:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.  This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

[…]

“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him.  But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

And we’ve had complaints about this ever since.”

“Complaints,” of course, which bother genuine progressives such as Sean Penn and Obama’s diversity czar Mark Lloyd.  Which is why they think that “complainers” should be thrown in jail.

The left loves – and even worships as a surrogate for God – big government, and seemingly the bigger the better.  And of course, the very biggest governments, the ones that can control the populations and guide their nations to the next socialist Utopia, invariably are or descend into totalitarian regimes.

It’s not that Sean Penn is stupid for his views.  Sean Penn is accurately explaining his progressive philosophy.  He is not a politician who needs your vote, so he can be honest.  And as a multi-millionaire celebrity, he epitomizes the mindset of progressivism: that the peon clay masses are ignorant and need to be ruled over, and that they should surrender their wills and allow the government of their superiors to do whatever they think is best.  And who better than an elitist Hollywood celebrity to explain why the more than 300 million Americans constituting the lower classes are like maggots crawling across the landscape, and that they should be compelled to shut up and do as their betters tell them?

So let us be rid of Sean Penn and introduce ourselves to the “wisdom” of Tom Hanks.  Recently – in acquainting America with the 10 part HBO series on World War II he took part in – had this to say:

“Back in World War II,” he told Brinkley, “we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” In a separate interview, Hanks referred to the war in the Pacific as one of “racism and terror.”

Damn racist American bastards.  They were called “the greatest generation”; the generation that rose up from the ashes of the Great Depression to defeat the greatest evil the world has ever seen.  But you and Tom Hanks know the truth, don’t you: they were just a bunch of racists.  The vicious cheap-shot sneak attack at Pearl Harbor didn’t have anything to do with our going to war against Japan.  Heck, in the spirit of the modern “truthers” who claim that Bush bombed the World Trade Center, FDR probably sent in American planes painted to look like Japanese Zeroes.

Stupid unAmerican fool.  We didn’t want to annihilate the Japanese “because they were different.”  We were forced to annihilate them because they were utterly fanatic and refused to surrender.  We were forced to annihilate them because they started a war of annihilation and wouldn’t stop.  Tom Hanks is too ignorant and too much an ideologue to consider the Rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March, or the Banzai charges, or the first suicide bombers known as the Kamikaze.  I’d like to see Tom Hanks take part in a movie about the monstrous and utterly despicable Unit 731.

If Tom Hanks wasn’t a complete moral idiot, he would simply realize that Japan attacked us without provocation with a vengeance, and the United States of America responded with a vengeance.  Just as they would have done had their attackers had white skin and round eyes.

And when Tom Hanks asks, “Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”  he is not content to label the greatest generation as a bunch of racist warmongers; no, he seeks to do the same thing to our great warriors who are protecting us today.

Why are we fighting against Islamic jihadism?  Because they’re “different,” as Tom Hanks maintains?  How about because they attacked us in vicious act of war that left 3,000 innocent civilians murdered?  Maybe THAT had something to do with it?

Contrary to being “racists,” our soldiers today are operating with a level of restraint against an utterly despicable terrorist enemy – who hide among and prey upon their own civilian people – that is simply amazing to behold.  Our soldiers as a matter of routine are the most enthusiastic back-patting cheerleaders of the courage and toughness they are beginning to see in their Afghani and Iraqi counterparts.

Tom Hanks, like Sean Penn, see only ugliness in America and Americans, and only beauty in the totalitarian regimes of brutal dictators.

And that is, and always has been, the progressive way.