Vocal Minority

Sensible Liberal: Jon Lovitz

I think actor Jon Lovitz has been mugged by reality!

Over the weekend the self-described liberal Democrat and Obama voter, had some harsh and profanity-laced words for President Golden Calf.

Click here for story and audio [LANGUAGE WARNING].

But my question isn't what took Jon Lovitz so long to realize Obama was trouble. My question is why is the rest of Hollywood still so freaking clueless???

 

Liberal Hypocrisy: OWS-Supporter Kanye West Does It Again

Jammie at JWF calls him “the world's most expensive douchebag” and that he “wouldn’t pay a dollar to see this loser perform.”

I'd have to agree with him.

Here's why ...

After refusing to settle for less than $1 million to perform at a New Year’s Eve party, Kanye West went back on a hunt to land a gig two days before the ball drops. “He doesn’t want to get on a stage for less than a mil,” a source said. The “Watch the Throne” rapper is considering heading west to Vegas to DJ at an Eve bash — but at a much lower rate. West tweeted Tuesday, “I kinda wanna DJ somewhere this New Years,” and then, perhaps to boost business, tweeted again Wednesday, “My New Years DJ name is gone be YEEZY WORLD PEACE! If you book me you have to put YEEZY WORLD PEACE on the E-vite. Or I ain’t spinning.”

Gee, I wonder how many 99%-ers know what it's like to refuse a job unless you get paid at least $1 million. But Kanye showed up at Occupy Wall Street back in October wearing gold chains, gold teeth, and $355 Givenchy threads.  Yeah, there's a real man of the people.

Kanye West has made countless millions peddling profane, hate-filled, misogynistic crap. He's millions of times worse than any banker or financial CEO. He's what wrong with America, not Wall Street.

 

Really Angry at the 1%, OWS? Protest Hollywood, the World Series, D.C., and Universities!

Forget global warming climate change. The real inconvenient truths are those that make liberals/Democrats react like Dracula to holy water. And for those of you who associate or sympathize with Occupy Wall Street, this one’s a doozy.*

If the OWS protesters are really serious about castigating the 1%’s alleged hoarding of wealth at the expense of the rest of us 99%, why are they only protesting Wall Street? Why are they not protesting the uber-rich Hollywood/celeb crowd, many of whose salaries make the average Wall Street financier look like a beggar? Why not six- or even seven-figured pro athletes? And let’s not forget about certain members of the public sector: public officials, public union bosses, educators, and administrators.

It’s time to shed light on who exactly is this 1% is.

It turns out, according to CNN Money—not exactly unfriendly toward OWS—that Wall Street workers make up only 14% of the eeeevil 1%!

Who Are the 1%?
by Tami Luhby @ CNN Money.

Think it takes a million bucks to make it into the Top 1% of American taxpayers?

Think again. In 2009, it took just $343,927 to join that elite group, according to newly released statistics from the Internal Revenue Service.

Occupy Wall Street protesters have been railing against the Top 1%, trying to raise anger and awareness of the growing economic gap between the rich and everybody else in America.

But just who are these fortunate folks at the top of the income ladder?

Well, there were just under 1.4 million households that qualified for entry. They earned nearly 17% of the nation's income and paid roughly 37% of its income tax. [Which means the eeeevil 1% actually don’t pay their fair share; they already pay more than twice their fair share. Yet, Marxist demagogues from President Hope&Change to Mass. Senate candidate Liz Warren to really fat cat Michael Moore to the increasingly dense NBC Today host Matt Lauer would have you think otherwise.] …

Many workers in the securities industry in New York likely qualify for the Top 1%.

These folks, many of whom work only blocks from where protesters are gathering in Zuccotti Park, made an average salary of just over $311,000 in 2009, according to the state Comptroller's Office. (This figure does not take into account certain income, losses and deductions that make up adjusted gross income.)

A separate study found that financial professionals made up about 14% of the top rank in 2005 [and probably a little less now].

Executives, managers and supervisors working outside of finance accounted for 31%, the largest share, according to an analysis by Jon Bakija of Williams College, Adam Cole of the Treasury Department and Bradley Heim of Indiana University. Medical professionals came in at 15.7%, while lawyers made up 8.4%.

Wait: 14% + 31% + 8.4% + 15.7% only comes to 69.1%. Who makes up the remaining 30.9%? Hollywood celebs? Surely they make the average Wall Street Banker look like a pauper. Amazingly, Obama is in Hollywood this week drumming up support and racketing up millions of bucks from these out-of-touch multi-millionaires.

This is why it is glaringly ridiculous when the likes of Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Kanye West, and Russell Simmons join these hapless tattooed and pierced lot of unemployable college graduates. It would be no more ridiculous if Dakota Fanning (or her younger sister, whatever her name is) picketed at the house of a town’s best paid preteen paperboy on the grounds he was making too much at the expense of other kids. I could just see it now, a bunch of jealous young thugs breaking into the garage and tearing the kid’s bike to pieces. The town’s local paper would report favorably about the mob, how they're "raising awareness" about the unfairness of it all and how the unruly mob of youngsters are justifiably expressing their anger and frustration ...

What about star athletes? Yup. In fact, Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters looked up the salaries of this year’s World Series teams and learns that:

The average player on the St. Louis Cardinals makes $3.9 million a year. On the Texas Rangers it's $3.2 million.

Hmmmm.

Next, what about government fat cats in Washington, (not to mention many state capitals)? Last week it was reported that federal employee- and lawyer-heavy Washington, D.C. has become the nation’s richest metropolitan area. And according to this 2009 article at About.com:

The median personal wealth for members of Congress grew to $911,510 in 2009, up from $785,515 in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Nearly half of the members of Congress are millionaires. In FY2010 the Obamas made $1.8 million.

Read that again, friends: Nearly half of our taxpayer-funded Congressmen are millionaires, as is our president. And it’s supposed corporate greed people are rioting about? Why aren’t people protesting government greed? (Oh yeah, people have. They’re called the Tea Party. And the Democrat-media complex have been smearing them incessantly as extremist racists who don’t like the fact that a black man is in the White House!)

Finally, time to look seriously about Big Education. First, teacher union fat cats: Rishawn Biddle @ AmSpec writes:

The AFT alone collected $211 million a year in dues during its 2010-2011 fiscal year (most of it by force from the very teachers whose interests they proclaim to represent), while the far-larger NEA pulled in $397 million during its 2009-2010 fiscal year period. Each union, on their own, collects more dues than the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Service Employees International Union, or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. When one adds in the revenues collected by their affiliates, the two unions are billion-dollar organizations with budgets that match their corporate peers.

The leaders of both unions are as well paid as most midsized corporate chief executives and leaders in the nonprofit arena. AFT President Weingarten, for example, collected $493,895 in 2010-2011, a 15 percent increase over the same period last year; Weingarten’s NEA counterpart, Dennis Van Roekel, collected $397,221 in the previous year. Their staffs are also well-compensated. Four hundred thirty-three of the NEA’s staffers earned at least $100,000 in annual compensation; the 193 AFT staffers collecting six-figure checks include David Dorn, the union’s director of international affairs (who was paid $223,965 last year), and Hartina Flournoy, a longtime Democratic Party operative who earns $231,337 a year as Weingarten’s assistant.

When you consider that teachers’ union leaders at all levels collect lucrative sums from their unions and and additional salaries from the school districts that are servile to them, the wealth they acquire at the expense of taxpayers is astounding. New York City, for example, will shell out $9 million to 1,500 AFT officials even though they spend almost no time teaching. One of those double-dippers is Tom Dromgoole, an AFT representative who will collect $100,049 from the city (on top of his $50,461 paycheck from the union) even though he will only teach English classes for two days during the school year. And when they retire, they also collect sweet pension checks long after they left the classroom. Former NEA President Reginald Weaver, for example, collects an “annual annuity of $242,657” from Illinois’ busted pension system, thanks to a state law that allows union bosses to base their final year’s salary off their unionizing work; he’s one of 119 union players who get the proverbial fat of the land.

True, the high $100k’s and $200k’s are not quite the 1% -- it’s in the top 5% though, and that’s sure close enough -- but they are paid with our taxpayer money! And they way they get this money is arguably unwarrented and undeserved. These people produce nothing.

But just as hypocritical as a Hollywood celeb at Wall Street is a tenured university full-time professor at Wall Street. Lo and behold, last week several University of Pennsylvania professors attended Occupy movements. UPenn’s newspaper even David Horowitz’ Freedom Center released an official solidarity statement!

Yet here are some … um, inconvenient truths:

In 2000-01 undergraduate enrollment at UPenn cost:
Tuition + Fees = a little over $25,000. Room/board = approx. $7,800.
Total: $32,800.

In 2010-11 undergraduate enrollment at UPenn cost:
Tuition + Fees = about $40,500 Room/board = around $11,400. 
Total: almost $52,000.

 Why such a radical increase? Maybe because In 2000-01 the mean average salary for a full-time prof. at UPenn was $121,424. In 2010-11? $175,100. 

This figure does not include health benefits and pension. Plus, consider that full professors do not work 9:00-5:00, 5 days a week. (I spent over half a decade in an Ivy League grad school. I know quite well what these full profs’ work weeks look like.)

But wait, there’s more. In 1998-99 UPenn's president made $555,000 in salary and benefits. In 2002-03 it was $845,474 + benefits, etc. and in 2009-10 UPenn President Amy Gutmann brought home a total compensation of over $1.3 million. Now that’s the top 1%!

Professors and administrators are paid by taxpayer money and/or students who are now drowning in debt. Besides, you tell me in what other area do people’s salaries increase 45% over 10-11 years (with very little to show for it if you ask me, given the complete economic ignorance of OWS protestors)?

So who is screwing whom? Not Wall Street Bankers. Do young adults drowning in college debt have something to be angry about? Absolutely. But the target should be their institutions of "higher" education! These socialist profs with the six-figure salaries for doing a total of about six months of work have no business being among the rioters!

The Marxist left who rule the Democrat-media complex have their convenient template. An eeeevil rich banker sure makes for a better villain to the Marxist left than a Hollywood actor, baseball pro, a nameless faceless university president, or even the president of the United States who happened to make $1.8 million last year! Wall Street is the best distraction Obama and the Democrats can dream of. It takes all the attention away from their miserable failures, including their own culpability for the current economic mess.

*For the record, I do have one liberal Facebook friend who sympathizes with OWS, but also has asked publicly why Hollywood and athletes get a pass. This act of intellectual honesty deserves mention.

 

Liberal/Democrat Racism Toward Herman Cain Already in Full Force

I hear people keep asking if liberals/Democrats really believe the crap they spew daily. For instance, are the Democrat-media complex aware of their hypocrisy as they credit President Hope&Change for the killing of Muammar Qaddafi when several months ago — and remember : this operation was only to take “days, not weeks” — they were dutifully parroting the president’s promise that U.S. troops were not directly involved in the Libyan invasion?

Does President Hope&Change even care what a hypocrite he looks like when, after the Democrat-media complex blamed the likes of Sarah Palin and right-wing radio for creating an air of “incivility,” he goes around the country praising figures who call his ideological opponents “sons of bitches” and “barbarians at the gate,” and voices his support for the hate-filled, violent and destructive Occupy Wall Street?

Does Veep Biden realize what an imbecile he looks like when he accuses Republicans of being responsible for violent crimes and robberies in cities like Flint, Michigan when it has precisely been liberal Democrats like Biden who for 40+ freaking years have enacted policies that have aided and abetted such crimes and coddled their perpetrators?

Does Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid realize what a moron he looks like when he actually states with a straight face that the private sector is doing fine, that it’s the public sector that needs rescuing? (Oh did you hear, this week Washington, D.C. became the nation’s richest city.)

Do the DBF* media realize what blatantly biased Democrat mouthpieces they are when they continue to act as cheerleaders for the hateful, violent, extremist Occupy protests while at the same time smearing the peaceful, patriotic Tea Party as such?

Do the “fleabaggers” attending the Occupy protests realize (or even care) that, if they are truly angry about the state of the economy and unemployment in this country, they are aiming their rage at the wrong targets?

Do the Occupiers realize what hypocrites they are when they are joined by multi-millionaires like Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Russell Simmons, and Kanye West? Multi-millionaires

Yes, to be a liberal Democrat means to occupy a world irrevocably divorced from reality and to act like an utter hypocrite.

But while all the above are examples of this, the one that takes the cake is the Democrat-media complex’s treatment of Herman Cain. For seven years now, they have worshiped Barack Hussein Obama like a god and willingly ignored (or openly celebrated) his radical Marxist-socialist past.

And anyone who had the audacity to criticize President Golden Calf, from Rush Limbaugh to the Tea Party, were smeared as hateful racists who “just don’t like a black man in the White House.” The news media like the NY Times and MSNBC still say it. Self-appointed spokespeople for the black community like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say it. And celebrity blowhards like Jeneane Garofalo, Joy Behar, Harry Belafonte, Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson say it.

Liberal/Democrats’ Public Enemy #1

So now that Herman Cain is hitting the top of the GOP polls, what do all these wizards of smart have to say? First, political genius Jeneane Garofalo told an approving Keith Olbermann that the Tea Party was supporting Cain simply to hide their racism. Karl Rove, she went on to say, keeps his racism very covert. Which is weird since Rove is an establishment “Beltway” Republican and is most likely not even backing a Tea Party conservative like Cain, just as he was not supporting a Sarah Palin candidacy.

O.K., whatever helps you sleep at night, Jeneane.

But what is the most hypocritical is how the Democrat-media complex are themselves treating Herman Cain. All the racism and condescension and hostility they projected upon Obama’s critics they are now all overtly enacting upon Cain!

On MSNBC Lawrence O’Donnell conducted a thoroughly insulting, abusive and condescending interview with Cain. (To its credit, the left-leaning Atlantic called O’Donnell out on that.)

Even more outrageously, people have called Cain—a black man, mind you—a “bigot” and a “racist.” (Wait, I didn’t think black people could be racists. I’m so confused!) Among those hurling those accusations are the Obama-worshiping NY Times, the Obama-worshiping Time Magazine, and the Obama-worshiping NY Times again.

Democrat strategist Cornell Belcher has even called into question the authenticity of Cain’s blackness, as has Princeton’s most humiliating hire, “Professor” Cornel West and PBS’s affirmative action hire Tavis Smiley. Hugo Chávez’s pal Harry Belafonte has called him a “bad apple” and a “false Negro.”

A nice Yahoo! News contributor even declares that Herman Cain’s existence proves that “minorities can be racist too.” (Isn’t that nice? I wonder where this cupcake was when Obama was palling around with Malik Zulu “Kill Cracker Babies!” Shabbazz and the New Black Panthers. Where is she while Obama’s A.G. Eric Holder has made it the official policy of the DOJ not to pursue cases with black defendants such as the aforementioned New Black Panthers?)

It’s already started, people. Just as Sarah Palin was the target of the most hateful, sexist, misogynist, and violent rhetoric from the Democrat-media complex, so is Herman Cain already getting the “lynch the n*gger” treatment from the same people. And it’s going to get worse and worse.

Just sit back and watch the racism continue to come from the party of slavery, KKK, and Jim Crow from now until 2012. Herman Cain is on a roll and if there’s one thing the Democrat Party can’t stand, it’s a black man who’s left the plantation. If Herman Cain happens to win the GOP nomination and then capture the White House, watch the Democrats expose their hate and racism even more.

Related reading: Cain in the Cross-Hairs (Robert Stacy McCain)

*DBF = Democrat-b*tt-f**king

For Jon Stewart: 10 Major Ways OWS Is NOT Like the Tea Party

Ya know, sometimes the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart gets it right. In fact, I’ve even commended him on this blog when he does.

This, however, is not one of these times. Wednesday night he wondered out loud why conservatives were criticizing the Occupy Wall Street protests now going on nationwide, arguing:

I don’t get it! Here’s a group of Americans, disenchanted, railing against big government bailouts, angry because they played by the rules, worked hard, now they’re in debt from student loans and they’re unemployed… I mean, look, if this thing turns into throwing trash cans into Starbucks windows, nobody’s going to be down with that. We all love Starbucks.

But these protesters, how are they not like the Tea Party? Alright, some of them, you know, smoke and have pants made out of pot. So call them the THC Party. Aren’t these folks real citizens with real problems? Aren’t they also speaking for America?

I guess an adequate proficiency in criticial thinking skills was not a requirement for Stewart’s position at Comedy Central.

OK, Jon, really? You actually need it explained to you how OWS is not like the Tea Party? Other than at the former they’re smoking lots of weed. Fine …

Of course, I’m not the first one to note the obiously stark contrasts between OWS and TP. Wednesday morning, even before Stewart’s broadcast, my girl Ann (Coulter) wrote:

I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.

No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want—as is typical of mobs. They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate “Wall Street.” You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government.

This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore—which the protesters also did this week.

But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd—besides the smell of patchouli—is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic. …

The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.

The Tea Party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC’s Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another Tea Party in response to Obama’s plan to bail-out irresponsible mortgagers.

The tea partiers didn’t arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They’re perfectly happy with the original.

Tea partiers didn’t block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama’s unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.

Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.

In the two years following the movement’s inception, the Tea Party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy’s seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey, and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year’s election. …

So, if I may humbly pick up where Coulter left off, here are just a few way that OWS is completely different from the TP:

1. The Tea Party’s key demand is to restore the size and reach of government to that enshrined by the Framers in the Constitution. The Tea Party wants lower taxes, less regulation, less federal spending, and less intervention by the federal government into citizen’s private lives and businesses. To reiterate, the Tea Party’s rule book is the U.S. Constitution; they want to restore America to what it was supposed to be, as prescribed by the Framers. Thus, the Tea Party’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely American.

By stark contrast, the demands of OWS are for more taxes, more regulation, more federal spending (on them, of course), and more government intervention in people’s private lives and businesses (not theirs of course, just those of the eeeeevil rich).

Have you even seen a reference to the Founding Documents at an OWS? Of course not. Then there would be no room to display to Marx and Lenin literature. If you listen to any of the myriad demands of OWS attendees, it is clear they seek a revolution (their words, not mine) and start from scratch based on a Marxist-socialist model. Thus, OWS’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely un-American. They are not, as Jon Stewart ridiculous suggested “speaking for America.”

2. The Tea Party consists predominantly of the nation’s producers, those who own businesses and employ people, older citizens who have worked their entire lives to secure a home and retirement but who are seeing the value of their investments plummet and the financial security of their offspring diminish. They are, as Obama likes to say, “working Americans.” They value success and don’t want to see it punished—by the government or anyone.

On the other hand, The so-called occupants of Wall Street are primarily aging hippies, avowed Marxists and socialists, professional protesters like MoveOn.org and Code Pink, and tattooed, multiple-earringed, rainbow-haired twentysomethings who in all their years of college apparently never learned one single damn thing about how the economy works. They resent success and exist precisely to see it punished.

3. One can safely guess Tea Partiers are mostly members of the 53% who pay some sort of the share of the nation’s income tax burden. From them you’ll hear messages of personal responsibility, hard work, and absolute moral standards that are essential for a prosperous civil society.

On the other hand, despite their martyr-like “99%” moniker, it would be safe to say that OWS participants are part of the 47% of Americans who receive rather than contribute to the income tax burden of the U.S. They are members of your quintessential entitlement generation, having been reared in a liberal-dominated educational system rooted in self-esteem, multiculturalism, and a “whatever feels right is right” code of morality. Their sense of personal responsibility is as developed as the horns growing out of my Jewish head.

4. Whereas the Tea Party was falsely accused of being corporate-funded conservative-media-backed “astroturf,” when it is a legitimely grassroots movement, there’s evidence that OWJ has big-powered and big-moneyed support, including unions and Hollywood useful idiots like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon.

5. As documented by Brent Bozell and the folks at NewsBusters, the peaceful assemblies known as the Tea Party have been fallaciously depicted by the mainstream media as violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs.

By stark contrast, the actually violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs called OWS have been championed by the MSM as the nation’s most beautiful display of democracy in action. The blatantly biased culprits include the NY Times, CNN, NBC, the NY Times again, NBC again, ABC and the NY Times yet again.

6. The Tea Party was (and still is) relentlessly smeared by the highest officials in the federal government. A prime example is Nancy Pelosi. Keeping his own hands clean, Obama gleefully allowed then-House Majority Speaker to swing mercilessly at them. First, she accused them of being “astroturf” being funded by big-moneyed people. Then, she likened them to Nazis and spun public tales about seeing swastikaaaaahs. She mocked them in March, 2010, as she emerged from the Capitol building upon the passage of the Obama(S)care bill, wielding that huge gavel and cackling like the Wicked Witch of the West as she walked through an understandably angry crowd. She also said the Tea Party’s supposedly violent rhetoric reminded her of the social unrest that occurred in San Francisco in 1978, the year gay mayor Harvey Milk was murdered.

The actually violent, physically threatening OWS? Politico reports:

“God bless them for their spontaneity,” Pelosi told reporters. “It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.” Queen Nancy also said, “The focus is on Wall Street and justifiably so,” Pelosi said. “The message of the American people is that no longer … will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street.”

Actually, the focus on Wall Street is not justified, San Fran Nan. Rather, the correct message is that the recklessness of you and your fellow Democrats in Congress and the White House is what has caused massive joblessness on Main Street.” That was the message of the Tea Party, of course, and you have spent the past two years smearing and libeling them.

Veep Joe Biden has also recently smeared the Tea Party as “barbarians at the gate” in the presence of none other than the Community-Organizer-in-Chief himself. That was at the same event where Union thugster Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., said they needed to “take the sons of bitches out” and that those present were Obama’s army that were ‘ready to march,” also to Obama’s approval. So much for that New Civility Obama preached about this January in Tucson.

What about the malcontents at OWS? Yesterday Obama incredibly legitimized them by declaring that they “expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”

No, that would be the Tea Party, you a-hole. (Oooooo, someone better let AttaaaaackWaaaaatch know I just called the president an a-hole!)

7. As far as I know, no one at a Tea Party has called for the targets being beheaded (compliments of Hollywood actress and “comedienne” Rosanne Barr) or eaten.

I don’t believe a Tea Partier has suggested people kill their parents either, as did this clearly frustrated gay guy at OWS. While the Tea Party is accused of violent, hateful rhetoric despite no substantive evidence, the violent rhetoric of OWS is boldly on display.

Hell, even their name contains “occupy,” which is a military term meaning to overtake by means of physical force! 

8. As far as I know, no throng of Tea Partiers has blocked traffic or overtaken bridges, nor have they started brawls with police and gotten pepper-sprayed and arrested on masse. This, of course, has been happening nationwide at OWS protests.

9. As far as I know, no Tea Partiers have blamed the Jews for our economic mess or hurled antisemitic slurs at people, such as at least four which have occurred at OWS rallies. 

10. As far as I know, none of the lovely ladies of the Tea Party movement have gone topless or in bras to make their points. If, however, you’d like to see young ladies publicly brandishing their bras or bearing their breasts for their cause, please head to your nearest OWS protest [h/t Mike Haltman at the Political Commentator].

So there you are, Jon Stewart. Merely ten of the myriad ways Occupy Wall Street is nothing like the Tea Party. Put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.

And for those of you at OWS who need a job, there might be a spot for you over at Comedy Central. Apparently, having a properly functioning brain is not a job requirement.

Yom Kippur y’all. I is outa here!

Liberal Hypocrisy: Hollywood Edition

This country seems to be falling apart at the seams. At this stage several cities are being besieged by cluessless, mindless, selfish, entitled brats. They are converging upon Wall Street in NYC and financial institutions elsewhere. Without a shred of shame, these thug-fests where hundreds have been arrested are called Days of Rage and occupying Wall Street. So much for that new civility, right? (Wait, I thought the Tea Party was supposed to a violent, extremist, angry mob. I'm SO confused!)

Of course, these violent mobs are being whitewashed by the DBF* media. I even have FB friends who are attending them (while tweeting and Facebook-ing about it. Brought to you by capitalism of course. Duh!) One FB friend chided me for criticizing the mobs, accusing me of being against the First Amendment right to peacefully assemble. (Except of course, these animals are not assembling peacfully and the clause refers to assembling to address grievances to the government, not private citizens. But whatevah.)

Make no mistake, these angry mobs have been incited by none other than Barack Hussein Obama. The president who in January politicized a deadly shooting in Tucson by accusing the right of fomenting anger and inciting rage has succeeded at the only thing he knows how to do: Whip ignorant, dependent, easily malleable people into ... how did Commie prof turned Senatorial candidate Liz Warren say it ... marauding bands. Now these spoiled selfish brats have converged upon financial instutions around the country for imagined crimes while the real criminals -- the Democrats in Congress and the White House -- get off scot-free.

To make matters worse, Hollyood A(-hole) listers are showing up to give legitimacy to these mobs. Drudge this morning reports that unfunny foul-mouthed Rosanne Barr has called for the beheading of bankers and rich who don't want to pay more. So much for that new civility, right? (Wait, I thought the Tea Party was supposed to a violent, extremist, angry mob. I'm SO confused!)

In light of this participation from these out-of-touch, pampered, uber-rich celebs of the Left Coast, Janine Turner has this op-ed at the Washington Examiner [h/t reader and occasional contributor benjaminTheDonkey]:

Living amid Hollywood hypocrisy

The liberal Hollywood elite, who stand firmly on their right to be heard, their right to express, their right to persuade through art, arrogantly deny that same freedom to anyone who may disagree with them. And like most liberals, they have a blind spot for their own intolerance.

I remember one Emmy ceremony in particular for its incessant anti-conservative, anti-Republican diatribes, one after another. I remember sitting, slumped in my chair, just counting the moments until I could be released from the lions' den. There I was -- a captive, a hostage to their narrow-minded and condescending point of view, expressed in a vacuum.

I couldn't wait to leave Hollywood. I always felt like I was in a bubble when I lived there -- in a stifling tropical snow globe. It was like that fabulous scene in "The Truman Show" where Jim Carrey leaps from his boat and beats his head against the sky on the set of the world, wanting to get out.

In Hollywood, they think America is inherently bad, a world embarrassment, even as they gorge themselves on the American dream.

Hollywood is a surreal and pretend world whose way of life is actually ruthless free enterprise -- it is called show business, after all. Hollywood is where stars, movie producers, writers and agents actively seek glamour, money, power and fame; where they covet fast cars and face-lifts and fly in private jets. They drink fine wines and insist on free spirits. They are the ultimate connoisseurs who insist on living liberty at large.

Yet somehow, the inhabitants gag at the very thought of capitalism going on elsewhere.

In Hollywood, they deplore censorship. Yet they embrace tyrants such as Hugo Chavez who use their power to censor opposition voices. They sneer at Wall Street even as they fall all over themselves running to see how many millions their movies have grossed. They think Obamacare works nicely for poor people in the "flyover states," yet they would never accept anything but the top doctors for themselves.

They think socialism is a novelty -- a nicety whose time has come. Yet how odd to imagine their lot under a Chavez or a Castro or a Stalin. Just picture the collapse of Hollywood's playground -- the redistribution of their wealth, the despotic squelching of their free speech, the strangling of their rights and riches. ...

Nail: Meet head. 

Every time I hear about these mobs, I nearly weep for my country.

Liberal Stupid-Ass Comment: D.L. Hughley Tweets Offensive Comments About Herman Cain

Gee, the Hollywood A-(hole) List gets longer and longer and longer. Last Saturday, after The Herminator trounced in the Florida straw poll, pundit George Will said it would make liberals' heads explode. And indeed it has.

First, actor Morgan Freeman -- who, after playing roles like "Crazy" Joe Clark in the movie Lean On Me and other movies that send a wholly Republican message -- bashed the Tea Party as a bunch of racists.

At least the DBF media reported that comment. But there was apparently a Tweet by black actor D.L. Hughley that has stayed under the media radar for an entire week already.

Crystal Wright, who blogs at ConservativeBlackChick.com, writes at the Daily Caller:

Black comedian D.L. Hughley is at it again, making racist and incendiary comments about Republicans. Apparently, Herman Cain’s victory in the GOP Florida straw poll was too much for the liberal-minded Hughley to bear. On September 27, Hughley launched into a stream of demeaning, racially charged tweets about Cain on his Twitter account @RealDLHughley, which his loyal followers responded to in kind. You may remember Hughley’s fleeting CNN talk show was cancelled in 2009 because he said during an interview with former RNC Chairman Michael Steele “the Republican National Convention literally looks like Nazi Germany.”

Literally, Mr. Hughley? They were actually wearing Nazi uniforms and swastika armbands? Were theyliterally marching in goose step and burning books and rounding up Jews and throwing them into cattle cars, Mr. Hughley?

No, of course not. The only thing that made the RNC Convention "literally look like Nazi Germany" as that the attendees were predominantly (but not all) white. For some reason this has become a sin to the mentally deranged left. So, to Dem-wits like Hughley, being white = being a Nazi. He's judging a group of people purely by their skin color. Don't know about you, but that sounds pretty freaking racist to me!

Wright goes on:

Hughley’s tirade against Cain may have gone unnoticed were it not for @blackrepublican tweeting about Hughley’s incendiary commentary. “Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll by a lot! I loved Herman Cain when he played Mr. Gaines on a different World,” Hughley tweeted. This prompted other tweets by Hughley and his followers that implied Cain was an Uncle Tom and not REALLY black because he is a conservative who doesn’t choose to believe in Democrat plantation policies that keep blacks economically oppressed.

Apparently, Hughley was too absorbed in his racist Twitter banter to notice a recent Rasmussen poll that found Cain trailing Obama by just 5% in a hypothetical match-up.

Several tweets later, Hughley wrote:

Here are some other tweets from this genius:

This enticed others to compare Cain to the “original Cream of Wheat,” “Stepin Fetchit” and the “butler in Gone with the Wind” — all of which conjure up demeaning, racist caricatures used during the pre- and post-Civil War era to describe the “dutiful slave.”

It’s shocking that, in the 21st century, blacks would so viciously attack a black man because he didn’t agree with their politics. Martin Luther King Jr. would be horrified because this isn’t the freedom he fought and died for.

Even more surprising is the fact that Hughley hasn’t removed or denounced any of the tweets, particularly the one which makes an offensive reference to Sarah Palin.

Most shocking of all, the liberal media has completely ignored the story. If the shoes were reversed and a white conservative comedian or radio host like Rush Limbaugh authored and incited such offensive commentary about Barack Obama or a black Democrat, the left-wing news media and politicians would be outraged. They’d demand apologies, firings and boycotts. But when a black comedian says racist things about a black Republican, he gets a free pass.

Indeed. In fact, in order to brand Rush and other conservatives as racist, the left has needed to make up racist quotes out of whole cloth and propagate them as fact. That's how morally corrupt the Democrat left has become.

And now, as we are seeing, being black does not protect Herman Cain from racist and offensive comments. Just ask Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

While the liberal establishment is busy protecting the double standard, their policies are doing nothing to create jobs for the 16.7% of blacks and 45.6% of black teens who are unemployed. Instead of mocking black conservatives, maybe it’s time for black liberals to turn their attention to some new ideas. After all, the Democrat hand of government isn’t helping blacks rise up. It’s only keeping them enslaved and dependent on a promise that is never realized.

Amen, sister.

I hope Herman Cain gets the GOP nomination. And I hope more black Americans wake up and realize the shackles their Democrat massas have kept them locked up in all these years. 

Liberal Hypocrisy: Obama's Crony Capitalism

Did you hear about the Democrat president who keeps claiming he's for the "little guy" and vows to protect them from those eeeeeeevil rich people?

The NY Times reports on Obama's latest little fundraiser:

Twenty-seven fund-raisers collected more than $500,000 each in contributions for President Obama and the Democratic Party in the past three months, helping Mr. Obama collect a record haul of campaign cash as he starts his re-election effort.

The list of Mr. Obama’s biggest bundlers, which was posted on the president’s campaign Web site on Friday, is filled with celebrities and the well-connected, like Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Hollywood mogul; Andy Spahn, a close friend and consultant to Steven Spielberg, the moviemaker; and Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue.

More than 200 other people scooped up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars each in contributions for the president. Collectively, they raised at least $35 million for Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee, or about 40 percent of the $86 million he reported for the quarter.

For the "little guy" my @$$. Like most Democrat politicians, Obama is a Soviet-style crony capitalist: He claims to be for the "little guy" but is bolstered financially by the uber-rich who get their own "I'm better than everyone else" rewars in return.

Not amused by this blatant display of hypocrisy, Rick Moran at AT writes:

Obama is the candidate of the rich. Or at least, those rich people who have learned that supporting the president brings benefits like health care waivers for their companies, exemptions from regulations, and nice little perks like an overnighter at the White House.

 

Noam Chomsky Gets Half a Clue

The world's most renowned "intellectual" actually learns something? From Selwyn Duke at AT.

Of all idiots, none is so useful as he who can masquerade as a genius. ...

... [S]ocialism has only failed every time it's been tried, but I guess Chomsky's renowned intellect has finally figured out a way to do the same thing over and over again and achieve different results.

But some people never learn, and in our time they're known as leftists.  It's bad enough when a starry-eyed teenager gloms onto a demagogue and then registers surprise when the scorpion acts in accordance with his nature, but it's downright pathetic when an old man behaves as if he has been born yesterday. 

And Chomsky, it seems, is continually born again yesterday.  In the late 1970s, he defended the Khmer Rouge at the very time that those Cambodian communists were in the midst of a genocidal campaign that ultimately claimed 30 percent of their nation's population.  He steadfastly refused to believe reports of Khmer Rouge atrocities, calling them part of a "disinformation" campaign targeting a group that, he said, could usher in not only "national liberation but also ... a new era of economic development and social justice." ...

Admittedly, today Chomsky acknowledges reports of Khmer Rouge atrocities.  He just denies reports of Chomsky Khmer Rouge support.  He has his own Year Zero, I suppose, and it started when reality became sufficiently heavy to make rationalization seem like Holocaust denial.  Hey, that fellow in 1977 was a different Chomsky.  Renowned intellectuals just don't make such mistakes. ...

The great Roman orator and statesman Cicero once said, "Any man is liable to err; only a fool persists in error."  Chomsky exhibits that typical leftist inability to discern good from evil, friend from foe.  If he'd been a rabbit, he would have hopped into the fox's lair well before getting so long in the tooth.  And if he didn't live in the West's cocoon of safety and comfort, he would ages ago have been swept away in a whirlwind of his own design.  He just doesn't learn.

Of course, we all can learn.  But it requires that you're humble and sincere enough to admit error (at least to yourself) and are receptive to Truth.  It also helps if you realize that, no matter how many people call you a "renowned" intellectual, you're perhaps not all that smart.

 

 

 

Liberal Hypocrisy: Jon Stewart Goes "Amos" on Cain; Liberals Laugh

Bernard Goldberg says everything I've been thinking ever since Jon Stewart mocked Herman Cain to a rolling-on-the-floor (presumably mostly liberal) audience. First, he correctly points out the blatant double standard:

Let’s say a white guy goes on television, puts on an exaggerated Amos ‘n Andy “black voice” and proceeds to make fun of a black man whose politics the white guy doesn’t like. Actually, let’s say he goes beyond merely making fun of the black man. Let’s say he tries to make the black man sound downright stupid. Does that make the white guy a racist?

The correct answer is … it depends.

If the white guy is Rush Limbaugh and the black man is Barack Obama, then of course the white guy is a racist — according to liberals.

But if the white guy is Jon Stewart and the black man is Herman Cain, the conservative businessman seeking the Republican nomination for president, well, then, that’s another story.

The other night Jon Stewart went on his show, and while he didn’t put on blackface makeup and start tap dancing he did put on a “black voice” and proceeded to mock Mr. Cain in a way that would never be tolerated if a conservative had done it.

Yet liberals didn’t scream “racist” the way they do when they see some guy at a Tea Party rally or when conservatives so much as look askance at Barack Obama. Instead, they laughed. For them, it was a regular riot when Jon Stewart, someone they adore, made that conservative black guy sound like a dopey character in a minstrel show.

But why isn’t Jon Stewart a bigot, when Limbaugh and Hannity and O’Reilly would be tagged as racists if they had done the very same thing? That’s easy. Because Jon Stewart is a liberal and liberals aren’t racists. It’s a physical impossibility. Only conservatives are racists. And if you don’t believe me, ask any liberal.

Yes, this is really, really dumb, but liberals really, really believe it. This delusion stems from a deeply held belief that liberals are not just right about the issues and conservatives just wrong. It goes way beyond that. Liberals believe they’re morally superior to conservatives. And morally superior people are never racists. Racism is the domain of morally inferior people — you know … conservatives. 

Then Goldberg discusses why liberals like Stewart dislike Herman Cain:

But we all know what Herman Cain’s real sin is, why liberals think he’s fair game. He’s a black man who has strayed from the liberal plantation. And that is something liberal elites — the supposed benefactors of black people in America — have a tough time dealing with.

Finally, a strategy in response to liberal criticism of black conservatives:

On the O’Reilly Factor recently, I told Juan Williams who was sitting in for Bill, that conservatives should do what liberals have been doing for years — they should play fast and loose with the word “racist.” They should promiscuously call every liberal who criticizes Herman Cain — or any other conservative black man — a racist. Not because it’s true, but precisely because it’s a lie.

Let’s see how those superior liberals feel when they’re the ones being slandered, when they’re the ones being maligned as racists simply because they oppose a black man’s conservative policies. Let’s see if they recognize that they’re the ones who perfected this form of slander, by calling conservatives racists simply because we disagree with President Obama’s liberal policies.

So, is Jon Stewart a racist for doing his Amos ‘n Andy routine to make fun of Herman Cain? Yes! Absolutely! And I will say that over and over again, every chance I get — even though I don’t believe it. And I won’t stop until my liberal friends finally get it. 

I’ve thought of doing precisely this for quite a while. If liberals’ everyday speech comprise of phrases like “that racist George W. Bush!” or “that sexist Rush Limbaugh!” when neither such character assassination is warranted, why can’t conservatives do the same to liberals?

After all, not only did Jon Stewart pull the Amos n’ Andy routine that would’ve gotten any conservative fired in about six-and-a-half seconds, but notice he also accused Herman Cain of not knowing how to read, or at least not liking to read. Can you imagine if a <i>conservative</i> suggested that a black person had a problem with reading? He would be fired in <i>four</i>-and-a-half seconds! But, as Goldberg argues, Stewart gets away with that too because he’s a liberal and liberals by default aren’t racists.

To quote an old Bill Cosby routine: Right!

Incidentally, Stewart is so intelligent (like Obama) that he either misunderstood or misrepresented Cain’s demand for three-page Congressional bills. Cain was making a very reasonable and cogent argument; only a liberal like Stewart wouldn’t get it. Why he or his audience even thought that bit was funny is beyond me. It would almost be as stupid as if a liberal misunderstood or misrepresented the “three-fifths” clause of the Constitution. Oh, wait …

So from now on, perhaps I will say “that racist Jon Stewart!” And also “that racist Joe Biden.” Not only did he call Obama a “clean, articulate” black man—as opposed to an ebonics-speaking thug lookin’ like a fool with his pants on the ground—but he also said you couldn’t go into a 7-11 without an Indian accent. This is the man Obama picked as V.P.!?

From now on, I could easily speak of “that sexist Bill Maher” and “that sexist Bill Clinton.” And I’d be much closer to the truth. Rush Limbaugh has never called a woman a “tw@t,” let alone a stupid one, as Maher did recently before a laughing (and presumably mostly liberal) audience. He certainly hasn’t faced credible accusations of sexual assault by several women over the span of a decade, as Clinton has.

To conclude, then, I’d say I agree with this entire Bernie Goldberg article except for one thing: When he threatens to wantonly call liberals racist he says he does it because he knows it’s a lie. If I were to start doing it, it would be because I believe it’s the truth.

P.S. Herman Cain did appear on Fox & Friends and said he didn’t think Jon Stewart’s comedy “act” was racist. I think Cain is giving him too much credit.

 

 

 

 

 

For When They Do "The Herman Cain Story" ...

While watching Herman Cain on Hannity last week, I said to the wife, "He reminds me of someone ..."

And then it hit me. Here's the perfect guy to play the Hermanator if they ever make a movie about him:

Actor Delroy Lindo.

Black Race Pimps: I'm Callin' You Out!

The always outspoken Tea Partyin' Lloyd Marcus calls out black race-baters in this American Thinker piece:

This news story totally infuriated me. Headline: Van Jones' Political Group Targets 'Celebrity Apprentice'.

Text by Daniel Miller, Reuters

"An African-American political advocacy group is targeting "Celebrity Apprentice" star Donald Trump in the aftermath of what many feel are racially tinged political comments made about President Obama.

On Thursday, the organization ColorOfChange launched a Twitter-based campaign to persuade black "Celebrity Apprentice" cast members Star Jones and Lil Jon to denounce Trump for what the group terms "race-baiting."

One point: This is a Reuters news article. Why was this "ColorOfChange" organization not labeled "left-wing" or at least "liberal"? It is clearly so, and if a conservative-leaning organization was mentioned, they would definitely have called it thus. And why did Reuters not note that, as Marcus points out, ColorOfChange is the advocacy group of former Obama czar and openly Communist Van Jones? If, say, Sarah Palin was the head of some conservative advocacy group, you think Reuters would have left that out?

Now here's Marcus's retort/rant:

I am so sick of these racist so-called civil rights groups bullying people with race. It is an indisputable fact that the liberal mainstream media exempted presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama from the usual vetting process of one seeking to be elected Leader of the Free World. Obama's skin color trumped everything. ...

I watched a black intellectual on TV shilling for Obama. He used a plethora of big words to cover the simple school yard truth that he was a black bully racist, committed to Obama no matter what. Sounding extremely intelligent, the black racist was spouting lies and illogical stupid conclusions. But man, did he sound "smart."

Liberals do this all the time. They have a basic emotion-driven dislike for America and all of the traditions and values which have made us great. They hide their disdain for America under a shroud of intellectual mumbo-jumbo; spouting crazy stupid nonsense which sounds above our ability to understand. I call it, "Intellectual Stupid Speak."

My fellow Americans, racism is ugly and evil. Most Americans agree and reject it. So, when I see black race pimps like the ColorOfChange using race to bully people, it turns my stomach.

And, something else that truly annoys me. The black community is not a tribe with chiefs dictating our monolithic opinion. I ask that these disgusting race baiting organizations please stop running around proclaiming they speak for "the black community". I am black. They do not speak for me.

Here here, Mr. Marcus!

Let's see this radical left-wing race-mongering group defend Herman Cain when he starts getting racist slurs hurled at him by the real racists in this country: the Left.

Atlas Shrugged movie | Are you a producer or a moocher?

From Marsha Enright and Gen LaGreca at the Daily Caller.

The lines are drawn in the sand. Where do you stand? Will you mooch with the looters and give up everything — your work, your money, your liberty, your mind, your character, and your soul — for a few fleeting stolen goods and illegitimate advantages? Or will you join the producers, in a world of free minds, free markets, wealth, prosperity, protected private property, and liberty? See “Atlas Shrugged: Part I,” then read the book — and decide.

Liberal Hypocrisy: Muslim Violence Is Our Fault; Non-Muslim "Violence"? Also Our Fault.

What is it like to go about life thinking like a liberal/Democrat?

Last year Florida Pastor Terry Jones merely threatened to burn a Koran. The result? Days of murderous Muslim violence. This time, Jones actually burned a Koran. The result? Days of murderous Muslim violence.

But only to a liberal is it not remotely obvious that these days Muslims are always inflamed, as Aaron Goldstein at American Spectator correctly notes:

… So once again the Muslim world is inflamed. But then again when isn’t the Muslim world inflamed? Of course, most of us remember the late Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses. While Rushdie is still walking this earth more than two decades after the fatwa was issued, the same cannot be said of Hitoshi Igarashi. If his name isn’t familiar it ought to be. Igarashi was the man who translated The Satanic Verses into Japanese and because of it he was stabbed to death in July 1991. And in case you think the Muslim world has forgotten about Rushdie, there were renewed calls for his death in 2007 when it was announced he would be knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.

Remember when authorities in Sudan accused an English schoolteacher named Gillian Gibbons of blaspheming Islam because the children in her class named a teddy bear Mohammed? She was sent to jail and was due to receive forty lashes until international pressure was brought to bear against the Sudanese government, which released her from jail and deported her back to Britain.

Remember the Danish cartoon controversy? In January 2010, nearly four years after the cartoons of Mohammed were published in Jyllands-Posten, a Somali man broke into the home of Kurt Westergaard, the man who drew Mohammed, with the intent of killing him. Fortunately, Danish police were able to thwart the attack and Westergaard was unharmed.

Theo Van Gogh wasn’t so lucky. In November 2004, he was murdered in broad daylight in the streets of Amsterdam because of his documentary film Submission,which documented violence against women in the Muslim world. Remember what Van Gogh’s murderer,Mohammed Bouyeri, said to his mother in a Dutch courtroom? Bouyeri said to her face that he felt no sympathy for her because he deemed her a non-believer. Van Gogh collaborated on this project with former Dutch Member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali who to this very day is under 24 hour protection?

Speaking of violence against women in the Muslim world, it was in January of this year that a 14-year-old girl named Hena Akhter was executed in Bangladesh for having been raped. Yet in the eyes of Sharia law and the Muslim village council who upheld it she was nothing more than an adulterer who brought dishonor to both her family and to her village. …

To this list, Arnold Ahlert at JWR reminds us, we can add former Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris, who became the target of a death threat following her satiric “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” idea. Ms. Norris is currently in hiding in our own country because of Muslim death threats.

Despite all these facts, the liberati have all blamed Jones for this latest incitement of violence. Some are even intent on violating his First Amendment rights to stop him. On Sunday’s Face the Nation the loathsome Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said:

Ten to 20 people have been killed. We’ll take a look at this of course. As to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.

Um, excuse me, Mr. Reid, but you might want to reread the First Amendment. It’s in the Constitution, that document which you swore to uphold a number of times already.

To make matters worse, RINO Lindsey Graham-nesty (R-SC) joined in the Jones-bashing:

I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.

Imagine if this was said when Bush was president! You could people like … well, Harry Reid, screaming that the Bush administration was trying to squelch people’s First Amendment rights!

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t approve of what Jones is doing. But I’ll be damned if I approved of opportunistic politicians (as well as the increasingly feckless Gen. David Patreaus) blame him for extremist Muslim violence and then try to infringe upon his Constitutional rights.

Secondly, I am sick and tired of animals known as “radical Muslims” being absolved for murderous violence while Christians and Jews (particularly in America) are being blamed for inciting violence halfway around the world. You see, both Richard Cohen of the NY Times and Joe Klein of Time Magazine argue that Jones’ burning of the Koran is the moral equivalent of the murder of innocent human beings! As Allen Estrin writes at Dennis Prager’s website, this is what passes as sophisticated liberal thought. (In fact, Prager talked about this yesterday on his show; I believe he said it will be the topic of his next article.)

OK, libs. Let’s apply your utterly convoluted logic to other situations:

When a deranged fundamentalist Christian murders an abortionist, then by twisted liberal logic, it is the act of abortion that is to blame for this completely understandable act of murder. But when such despicable acts occur (and believe me, a vast vast majority of pro-lifers disapprove of murdering abortionists), the Democrat-media complex chastises the murderer and even campaigns for bigger protection for abortionists!

In this country there are lots of things done that are offensive to Christians and/or Jews. Remember the taxpayer-funded work of “art” called “Piss Christ”? Or the one with elephant dung smeared all over a the Virgin Mary. When Christians merely complained—no one murdered anyone and no one set anything on fire or bombed any buildings, just complained—it was the “artists” with whom the liberati sided. Offended Christians were told to get over it, that this was a free country and that the religiously offensive pieces of art were protected under the First Amendment.

With Jews it’s kind of a PC-determined craps shoot. If some artist, celebrity, or college speaker offends the sensibilities of Jews (especially if it’s an anti-Israel message), then the liberal left will be among the first to support the rights (if not the actual sentiment) of the offending party. But if righty Glenn Beck says something that liberal Jews don’t like or Sarah Palin invokes—gasp!!!—“blood libel,” the liberati will be first in line to slap a gag order on them, citing First-Amendment-violating “hate crime” laws.

This curious double standard even applies to non-religious situations. When violence is committed upon the right (e.g., the recent violent protests in Madison, Wisconsin), the liberati will circle the wagons around the perpetrator and believe (either privately or publicly) that the victim deserved it. But when a liberal/Democrat merely faces opposition from the right—think Tea Party rallies—the reaction is completely the opposite: You think for one second that had there actually been Tea Party violence or racist attacks after the signing of the disastrous ObamaCare bill last March that the liberati would have blamed Obama, Reid, and Pelosi for inciting the violence? Hell, no.

So, why in the (very rare) instances of Christian violence do the liberati blame the perpetrators and excuse/support/protect the victims, but in the (very frequent) instances of Islamic violence do they excuse or support the perpetrators?

Why in the (very rare) instances of right-wing violence do liberati blame the perpetrators and excuse/support/protect the victims, but in the (very frequent) instances of left-wing violence do they blame the victims and excuse or support the perpetrators?

Because liberal logic is not based on principle, but on politically correct dogma and politically-motivated result. Only in the twisted liberal minds of Richard Cohen, Joe Klein, Harry Reid, and Lindsey the RINO is a Christian’s symbolic burning of a book responsible for or even equivalent to the wanton Muslim murder of innocent human beings. As long as Muslims are the liberal victim du jour, they will excuse every possible horrific act, from bombing to beheading to stoning to genital-mutilating to raping to burning and—for some college professors and even Obama’s longtime pastor and friend Jeremiah Wright—hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. Everything will be explained away as being our fault.

For this reason alone we must ensure that liberals of this mindset must be prevented from occupying the remotest posts of power.

Hollywood hit job: ‘Fair Game’

From the Daily Caller: Hollywood hit job: ‘Fair Game’ propagates easily disprovable myths about lead up to Iraq War

As Predicted, the Left Exploits Gay Suicides for Political Gain

I knew it would eventually come to this. After the horrible suicide of a number of gay bullying victims, most recently 18-year-old Rutgers student Tyler Clementi, I feared the left would exploit these incidents and turn them into an agenda-pushing opportunity.

And so they did.

Let me state this at the onset so that there is no confusion: I am not trying to minimize the unfortunate deaths of these young gay people. I feel dreadfully sorry for all these victims and their families and wish these suicides were avoided, as any decent human being would. That should go without saying.

But, it is now clear that the left has concocted another "crisis" not to go to waste: Over the past week, Hollywood celebs have come out not only to promote anti-bullying agenda against gays (which, of course, no one would be against) but to pin the blame for these victims' demise squarely on conservatives, Republicans, and any independent person who believes marriage should remain between one man and one woman.

In other words, if you don't support all the things that gays do, then there's no difference between you and the bullies who drove these poor souls to suicide.

Again, I don't mean to minimize these people's deaths or the factors that led to them, but I am calling it as I see it. Naturally, the left wants same-sex marriage, and they're shamelessly using these deaths to push that agenda on the American people by suggesting quite directly that anyone against same-sex marriage is just as guilty as a couple of a-holes who drove their gay bullying victims to suicide. I do not buy it. Nor do I buy for a second that there is a wave of rampant violence and bullying against gays in this country that needs to be confronted at the national level. 

(Incidentally, notice that before Clementi's suicidal jump from the George Washington Bridge, the victim du jour was American Muslims. It was only weeks ago when newspapers, magazines, and TV news shows were all abuzz about this non-existent wave of Islamophobia. The same suspects -- conservatives/Republicans -- were unjustifiably fingered -- and, just as in the current scenario, there is not a single right-wing fingerprint to be found on any bit of evidence.)

To add insult to injury, Bozell points out that those Hollywood celebs speaking out against intolerance and bullying have themselves quite a history of intolerance and proclivities toward violence against people they disagree with:

... This could have been a moment of national unity. Almost everyone can tell a story of being the target of bullying or mean-spirited ridicule about being too tall, too short, too fat, too skinny, too dumb, too smart, you name it. But others found this tragedy offered too rich a rhetorical opportunity. It was not a suicide to them. It was a murder.

CNN's "Larry King Live" brought on the antonym of human dignity, Kathy Griffin, who quickly inflamed the Clementi moment by charging "the blood's on their hands" of our "so-called leaders." She insisted, "I think that the way that we had trickle-down economics in the '80s, this is trickle-down homophobia. [???] And I really want people to connect the dots. And that's why I believe there's a connection between Prop. 8; Don't Ask, Don't Tell; and now the string of teen suicides."

Holy smokes. So Ronald Reagan killed him.

Let's put aside that ridiculous "connecting the dots" charge for a second. Larry King should have been asked: Given that Griffin regularly takes to the stage and television to viciously attack other people, is she really the kind of personality that can plausibly pose as the guardian of empathy and the role model for anti-bullying behavior? This year, she made the rounds of talk shows laughing up the controversy she created when she said Sen. Scott Brown's daughters were "prostitutes." One daughter, Arianna, is a freshman at Syracuse University -- the same age as the boy who took his own life. Griffin's even wished violence on people. She recently told a Playgirl magazine writer, "I'd like to push Sarah Palin down the stairs." Now she's CNN's anti-bullying poster child.

But Griffin wasn't alone. Sitting right next to her was lesbian comic Wanda Sykes, who chimed in with her own love taps. "In the laws and everything else that's out here, in the churches that they preach that homophobia (sic) is wrong. You pretty much have given kids permission to disrespect and, you know, and to cause harm to the gay and lesbian community." This is the same "comedian" who "joked" in front of the president that she hoped Rush Limbaugh's kidneys failed and he died. Now, she's on CNN lecturing on bullying.

Then there's Sarah Silverman, another comedian who thrives on shocking and insulting comments. Silverman went on YouTube to lecture the country: "Dear America, When you tell gay Americans that you can't serve their country openly or marry the person that they love, you're telling that to kids, too. So don't be f---ing shocked, wondering where all these bullies are coming from who are torturing young kids and driving them to kill themselves because they're different. They learned it from watching you."

Once again, putting aside the downright stupid accusation that opposing gay marriage is a bullying-and-suicide platform, is Silverman a role model against bullying? At almost the same time her accusatory video piled up more than 200,000 views, Silverman was vomiting this sex "joke" on Twitter: "9/11 widows give the best (sex act)." Can you say cognitive dissonance? She's now lecturing on bullying.

The left has no shame. None. On her satellite radio show, Rosie O'Donnell joined in the same party-line smear: "Well, if the society sanctions bigotry against gay people, how can you expect the children of this society not to ... internalize that? Whether it's Don't Ask, Don't Tell; whether it's gay marriage; (it's) being told by your country that you are not as valuable as your neighbor who's straight." O'Donnell denouncing bullying is akin to Michael Vick denouncing dog fighting. ...

And so on and so on.

Although I am politically conservative, I have plenty of gay friends and have even attended gay marriage ceremonies. Doesn't bother me. What does bother me is the typical leftist tactic of forcing a certain agenda down the nation's throat by blowing a handful of anecdotal tragedies out of proportion to create this us-vs.-them scenario with regard to gays, or Muslims, or whoever the perceived national victim of the week is.

Mr. Bozell is completely correct in pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the left using its most intolerant spokespeople to lecture the right on tolerance. But what I find most interesting is that we don't even know the political leanings of any of those bullies who drove their gay victims to suicide! Yet conservatives are immediately implicated.

And note these same liberals will witness dozens of radical Islamists shouting Allahu Akbar before blowing up (or trying to) their non-Muslim victims and insist that these are isolated incidents and that there's no particular ideological motivation linking them. It's a perfect example of how political correctness rots the brain.

Decent Americans must refuse to let the left exploit their guilt in order to push their radical leftist agendas.

Listen & Learn: Four Segments of El Rushbo Broadcast Excellence (7/13/10)

El Rushbo was on a roll yesterday. The first hour was just a series of monologue after brilliant monologue. The audio clip below contains four of those segments, edited, as usual, for long silences, commercial breaks, and other extraneous parts.

In the first segment, Rush wonders out loud why liberals are perpetually unhappy. And rightly so. Here we have a black president, a Democrat House and Senate, the eeeeevil private sector being tarnished and torn while the government gets bigger and bigger, government-run health (s)care passed, plus all of their favorite countries are being coddled, and hated countries being scorned. We are living in a virtual liberal utopia, so why are they still unhappy? Listen to the clip to find out.

The second segment, beginning at around 5:20, is my favorite: a Limbaugh-esque reply to Obama advisor David Axelrod. Axelrod recently made the oft-repeated Democrat claim that the GOP wants to “turn our country backward.” In response, Rush does the unexpected: He agrees with him!

The transcript of the response is here, for anyone who wants to copy it and share it online or by email. It’s that good:

“Recently, Obama advisor David Axelrod stated that America would be going ‘backwards’ if they allowed the GOP to take the majority in 2010”? Well, let me tell you something: I don’t know about you, folks, but I would love to go backwards! I would love to go back about a year and a half.

I’d love to go back when people’s houses had value, and the expectation was that the value would increase every year.

I’d love to go backwards to when we had a 4.7% unemployment rate.

I would love to go backwards to where our taxes were lower.

I would love to go backwards where our health care was affordable and excellent.

I would love to go backwards when our investments had a good chance of growing.

I would love to go backwards when people’s children could get jobs with their expensive college educations.

I would love to go backwards when we had leaders motivating and inspiring young people to seek the world, to seek their dreams.

I would love to go back to that period of time. It’s just a year and a half ago and beyond. Who wants to live in an era where the president and the first lady tell college graduates to screw it? Don’t get into the money making professions. Oh, yes, Mr. Axelrod, I would love to go back!

I would love to go back to a period of time when my president actually liked my country.

I would love to go back to a period of time when my president respected my country and my president was proud of it.

I would love to go back to a period of time where my president was not trying to destroy things that he thinks have been unfair for 20 or 30 years or 230 years.

I would love to go back to a period of time where my president did not look at the United States as the problem in the world.

I would love to go back, Mr. Axelrod, to a period of time where we had leaders who could the United States was exceptional and could indeed be the economic engine and the freedom engine of the world.

I would love to go back, and we don’t have to go back very few, Mr. Axelrod. Just 18, 19 months. Oh yes, I would love to go backwards, Mr. Axelrod.

And speaking of going backwards, isn’t that what Axelrod wants to do? Doesn’t Axelrod want to go back to the sixties? Aren’t he and his buddies perpetually trapped in the idealism and the promise of the 1960s? Perhaps we could say they would love to go back even further, to the time of Marx. Anita Dunn might like to go back to the time of Mao Tse-tung in the 30’s and 40’s! Some of the great dictators of all time are the professed inspiration for many members of the regime. So, yeah, we’re not the only ones that want to go backwards.

Told you it was classic.

Next, at around the 8:24 point, Rush talks about the death of longtime N.Y. Yankees owner George Steinbrenner in a way that he himself admitted was going to drive the liberati into apoplexy, mainly (1) As a capitalist, Steinbrenner knew when to die: before the death tax is reinstated in 2011, and (2) For a “cracker,” Steinbrenner sure made a lot of African-Americans wealthy.

Finally, at around the 10:00 mark, Rush discusses some polls—including a couple in the Washington Post of all places—that reports on the growing disillusionment with President Obama among voting blocks which are very important to the Democrats, including independents, environmentalists, the young college-educated, Hispanics, and Jews.

Enjoy these 14 minutes of brilliant broadcast excellence!

[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]

(Download clip here)

Liberal Media Bias: After Letting Levi Johnston Bash the Palins, CBS Mum on His Retraction

Not once, not twice, not thrice, but four separate times in 2009 CBS had Levi Johnston on the Early Show for exclusive interviews with Democrat-hack-posing-as-journalist Maggie Rodriguez.

Johnston’s fifteen minutes of fame began when he knocked up Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol out of wedlock (that probably took about 15 minutes too) and, as a reward, was used as a media spokesperson for bashing Sarah and the entire Palin family.

(Don’t bother looking to the Early Show for guests discussing the then-new president, his radical associates, or his family. You won’t find anyone.)

As is more and more the case with the mainstream news media, Levi Johnston was not a legitimate news story; he was a political cudgel to weild against their most feared and hated woman: Sarah Palin. Plain and simple. And CBS should have been ashamed of themselves four-fold.

But yesterday something surprising occurred: In People magazine of all places, Johnston goes on the record retracting many of the charges he made against the Palins on national TV.

Kyle Dennen at NewsBusters, who documents the four Early Show appearences, writes:

One wonders when CBS will offer a similar apology for so aggressively promoting Johnston, despite his lack of credibility. At the very least, the network should acknowledge the fact that he now recants past statements he made on their air.

At the very least is right. But this morning the Early Show and no show on CBS even mentioned Johnston’s People interview. What a freaking surprise.

Maggie Rodriguez and the rest of you at CBS: If you have at least one shred of decency and professionalism left in that Dan-Rather-poisoned “news” outlet of yours, you will report on Johnston’s apology. And you yourselves will apologize to Sarah Palin and her family for using this disgruntled young punk media-hog as a weapon against your sworn political adversary with no fact-checking whatsoever.

If you don’t, then consider this episode as just the latest exposing you as nothing but a shameless propaganda arm for the Obama administration and the Democrat Party.

Ball’s in your court.

Sensible Liberal: Elton John

Last week I was gratified by El Rushbo’s story about Elton John performing at his wedding, and about the events leading up to their unlikely friendship. (In a nutshell, they “met” while staying at the same hotel in Hawaii at the time Rush had his heart scare.). John apparently has gotten a lot of flak from his fellow ohh-so-tolerant liberal friends for befriending such a supposedly Neanderthal homophobe. So much for that “can we all get along” thing. John actually walked the walk, and gets criticism for it!

In any case, John has not been a fan of American Republicans/conservatives before. He was particularly vocal in his distate for George W. Bush.

Because of his politics, I don’t know what exactly motivated Elton John to reach out to Rush in Hawaii. But the fact that he did and the friendship that developed is very telling of John’s character. For that alone he deserved a “Sensible Liberal” post, but being on my blog vaca (which I’m still on, technically!) I didn’t get to write one.

Well, here’s one for him now, because for the second time this month he’s dared to go against the global Leftist grain:

Elton John rocks Israel after other artists cancel
Jun 18, 4:16 AM (ET)

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) - A concert by Elton John has given Israelis a boost after a string of cancellations by other world-famous artists.

The British rocker performed late Thursday in front of a screaming crowd of nearly 50,000 fans at a Tel Aviv stadium.

John, who wore blue-tinted sunglasses, told the audience those cancellations “ain’t gonna stop me from playing here, baby.”

Recent cancellations by the Pixies and Elvis Costello, who cited Israeli government policies, have added to Israel’s growing sense of isolation.

John swiped at those artists, saying, “We do not cherry-pick our consciences,” before hitting the opening chords of his 1972 hit “Crocodile Rock.”

To say the least, this whole thing with Israel–“peace” flotilla thing is so infuriating. Israel is the most democratic and humane country in the Middle East, and are in the Leftist world’s crosshairs because they have the audacity to defend themselves when agitated by the thugs that surround them. And I personally take the Left’s aversion toward Israel as veiled anti-Semitism. Helen “Go back to Poland” Thomas might agree.

It might sound cliché, but I consider this is a very dangerous time for Israel. Not only is the world on its back for perceived indiscretions, but she no longer has its most stalwart and powerful ally—the U.S.—on its side.

I just came back from a conference of several hundred Jews where I was virtually the only right-of-center person there. While I didn’t push political conversation, it was a very safe bet that I was the only one who didn’t vote for Obama and the only one who regrets that he is the president. President Golden Calf’s ultra-liberalism trumps all other transgressions to my fellow Jewish friends. And his treatment toward Israel, especially in light of the beating she’s taking from the rest of the world, is proof of that.

Is Elton John still a flaming (bad word choice?) liberal? Of course he is. But that doesn’t make these actions any less honorable.

Meanwhile, I wonder if my friends will have second thoughts about any artists who might have cancelled concerts in Israel.

Or will they keep them on their iPod’s singing along with them about love and peace and unity and togetherness. All while riding along in their fuel-efficient cars which still don Obama-Biden bumper stickers.

Oy.

High Schooler Objects to ‘Sicko’ Final Exam, Says Teacher Called Her A ‘Teabagger’ in Front of Class

There’s nothing wrong with the fact Debra Blessman kept secret from her students the name of the film she would require them to watch and analyze during finals week at Francis Howell High School. Today, however, the teacher might be wishing she had not kept her superiors in the St. Charles, Mo., school district in the dark about her plans to base final exams on the Michael Moore film, "Sicko" ...

Read more at BobMcCarty.com.

END THE OCCUPATION! LIBERALS OUT OF THE SCHOOLS NOW!!!