Gay Patriot Header Image

More Fascism from the Left

There is a GoFundMe page for contributions to the legal defense fund for policeman Darren Wilson, who either 1.) Shot down an innocent little black child who was just minding his own business out of sheer hate, or 2.) Shot a violent, aggressive 300 lb black man in self-defense after being assaulted, or 3.) Something in-between.

Barack Obama’s Justice Department, the Governor of Missouri, the MFM and the Left have all made up their minds that Number 1 is what happened. To the left, a trial at this point is just a formality; the mob has made their intentions clear and the mob must be satiated.

Therefore the left, since they know what is best for everyone, is demanding that GoFundMe take down the legal defense fund for Darren Wilson. Because — much like Christians who do not want to participate in gay weddings — his rights are forfeit to the will of the mob.

Hate Is the Fuel of the Left, Says Former Leftist

Posted by V the K at 8:06 am - July 27, 2014.
Filed under: Liberal Intolerance

Writing in the American Thinker, former hardcore Communist Danusha Goska provides “Ten Reasons I Am No Longer a Leftist.” It should come as no surprise that the No. 1 reason is the left’s deranged hatred.

Given that the left prides itself on being the liberator of women, homosexuals, and on being “sex positive,” one of the weirder and most obvious aspects of left-wing hate is how often, and how virulently, it is expressed in terms that are misogynist, homophobic, and in the distinctive anti-sex voice of a sexually frustrated high-school misfit. Haters are aware enough of how uncool it would be to use a slur like “fag,” so they sprinkle their discourse with terms indicating anal rape like “butt hurt.” Leftists taunt right-wingers as “tea baggers.” The implication is that the target of their slur is either a woman or a gay man being orally penetrated by a man, and is, therefore, inferior, and despicable.

San Francisco Leftists and German Neo-Nazis Find Common Ground

What could bring San Francisco Progressive Leftists and German Neo-Nazi skinheads together in harmonious unity? Why, Jew-hatred, of course. (And also authoritarian fascist socialism, but mostly Jew-hatred.)

In San Francisco (CIty Motto: “More exposed wangs than a whole season of Game of Thrones”), that bastion of progressive leftism, protesters turned out to oppose the only state in the Middle East that recognizes gay rights and support a regime where the only debate about gay rights  is whether they have the right to be thrown off high buildings or crushed under rocks.

And in Berlin, a combined anti-Jew protest organized by Mohammedans and German Neo-Nazis erupted in periodic chants of “Gas the Jews! Gas the Jews!

I guess these groups have to unite in order to destroy Jews and Christians; because Jews and Christians are so intolerant.

(more…)

First, Everything Was Rape, Now, Everything Is Child Pornography

Twice in the last couple of weeks, leftists have compared something Conservatives believe in to being tantamount to supporting child pornography.

First, windbag New York Senator Chuck Schumer compared Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s support of the First Amendment to support for Child Pornography.

“Are you against anti-child pornography laws?” Schumer asked of Cruz, who was not present in the chamber at the time. “Is he against anti-child pornography laws? Is he an absolutist?” Schumer continued.

And of course, the left-wing media took their cue, as Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart decided to compare support for the Second Amendment and support for the Washington Redskins to support for Child Pornography.

And this all makes perfect sense to the left. If you think political speech should not be regulated by Congress, you must support child rape. If you support a Constitutional, Human Right of self-defense, you must support child rape. If you support

It’s a strategy that has served the left perfectly well so far. Are you opposed to Government-run health care? You must be a racist who hates blacks. Do you think voters should have to show ID to protect the integrity of the vote? You must be a racist who hates blacks. Do you think people should pay for their own contraception? You, sir, are practically a rapist.

And these idiotic ad hominems work. Good Lord, we have a stupid, stupid electorate.

Is the Men’s Rights Movement a Reaction to Deranged Feminist Misandry?

Posted by V the K at 9:58 am - May 30, 2014.
Filed under: Leftist Nutjobs,Liberal Intolerance

 

nomaam2

Feminists are blaming the Men’s Rights Movement for the murders committed by psycho whackjob Elliot Rodger in San Diego; primarily on the basis that wedging Rodger into the “War on Women” narrative is useful to the feminist left’s agenda; and admitting that he was a deranged sociopath is not. A typical, albeit mild, response is from the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey.

Rodger’s misogynistic rhetoric seems undeniably influenced by the manosphere, and his manifesto has kicked off a loud debate about how modern society treats women, online and off. If there was ever a time to take a closer look at online misogyny, it’s now.

I am reminded of a Biblical passage relating to motes and beams. The fact is that before there was a Man’s Movement, there was a women’s movement. And the Women’s Movement has produced some extremely hate-filled feminist rhetoric that is widely embraced by the progressive left.

  • “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”  – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
  • “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”  -– Valerie Solanas
  • “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
  • “Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
  • “The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone
  • “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
  • “All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French

And there is more. Much, much more. It’s not limited to a few websites at the back of the internet; deranged feminist misandry permeates academia, politics, and pop culture. Entire cable networks like Lifetime and Oxygen are devoted to spreading the message that men are terrible. Womyn’s studies programs exist at every major university. A feminist professor or politician can express the idea that the world would be better off without men and be praised as a visionary, but let a man say the same thing about women and he’s branded a hater and bigot.

Is it a surprise that after decades of feminist man-bashing that some men would start to push back?

Progressive leftists want there to be two sets of rules; one set that lets them silence and stigmatize those whom they disagree with, and another to let them express their hatred in any vile terms they choose.

Gay Marriage Extremists Launch Intimidation Campaign Against Pro-Gay Marriage Professor

Douglas Laycock is a law professor at the University of Virginia, a supporter of gay marriage, but also a supporter of religious liberty. Therefore, he is now the target of an intimidation and harassment campaign from the intolerant gay left.

An outfit called GetEQUAL (led by its co-director Heather Cronk) has launched a national e-mail campaign attacking Laycock for his role in shoring up the legal arguments of those who support what it calls “religious bigotry.”

GetEQUAL has also recruited a University of Virginia law student (Greg Lewis) and an alum (Stephanie Montenegro) to send an open letter to Laycock asking him to consider the “real-world consequences that [his] work is having.” And they have submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking e-mails between Laycock and various right-wing and religious liberty groups.

Laycock has apparently committed the unforgivable Thoughtcrime of valuing religious liberty and freedom over the oh-so-delicate feelings of … I’m just going to say it… pansies. (Not used as a pejorative against their sexuality, but against their mewling, whiny, complete lack of emotional strength.)

I think it would be really constructive for him to hear how his work is being used to hurt the LGBTQ community. I don’t think he has any ill intent. I think he’s very thoughtful and moderate, and willing to hear both sides. But I think that everyone really has a lot to learn.

The Gay Leftist Thought Police are just echoing the anti-freedom of conscience attitude of Washington Post Columnist Johnathan Capehart.

[T]olerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It’s a one-way street. You cannot say to someone that who you are is wrong, an abomination, is horrible, get a room, and all of those other things that people said about Michael Sam, and not be forced — not forced, but not be made to understand that what you’re saying and what you’re doing is wrong.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech… except when gay people’s feelings are hurt.”- The 1st Amendment as construed in the Age of Obama.

Two More Victims of the Left’s Intolerance

Two upstate New York Radio hosts were fired today for disagreeing with the City of Rochester’s decision to pay for elective genital mutilation surgery.

Entercom Rochester on Thursday announced the firings of Kimberly Ray and Barry Beck from WBZA, calling their comments “hateful” and saying they don’t represent the station.

Ray referred to someone seeking gender reassignment surgery as “a nut job.” Beck equated the issue to having the city pay for breast enhancement or liposuction for a mentally ill woman.

It’s baffling to any sensible person why debt-ridden cities should be paying for elective surgery anyway.

On the other hand, leftist clown Ed Schultz is quitting radio.

More Intolerance from the Gay Left Thought Police

As I warned after the scalping of Brendan Eich (the Mozilla Guy), the Gay Left Thought Police are only getting more obnoxious.  Now, they have decided that affiliating with the Boy Scouts makes you unfit for public service.

California is proposing to ban members of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) from serving as judges because the Boy Scouts do not allow gay troop leaders, The Daily Caller has learned.

In a move with major legal implications, The California Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics has proposed to classify the Boy Scouts as practicing “invidious discrimination” against gays, which would end the group’s exemption to anti-discriminatory ethics rules and would prohibit judges from being affiliated with the group.

Remember when Gay Rights Activists objected to people being punished for what they did in their private lives? Seems like ancient history.

Dan Savage Is a Vile, Despicable Thing

I’m not going to reproduce the latest nasty, mean-spirited comment (in Tweet form) from the gay community’s self-appointed Moral Arbiter; suffice it to say, it uses the progressive left’s very favorite word (because profanity is how weak minds attempt to express emphasis) and it is a vile insult directed at people of far superior moral character than he. You can read it at this link.

And judging by the responses to his Tweet, his followers are as vile and reprobate as he is.

Charles Koch Speaks

We allowed the Eich/Mozilla brouhaha to obscure this, but it addresses the same underlying problem: the fascist intolerance of the “progressive” Left.

Last week, one of the Koch brothers responded to Harry Reid’s outrageous attacks demonizing them:

Charles Koch: I’m Fighting to Restore a Free Society

Updated April 2, 2014 7:47 p.m. ET

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation’s own government…[and] we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

…In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you…

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. “The natural progress of things,” Jefferson wrote, “is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” He knew that no government could possibly run citizens’ lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle…

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced…

…I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished…

He gives more, including some facts/details. (I’d reprint the article fully, except I haven’t obtained permission.) RTWT.

UPDATE: Also not to be missed is Kevin D. Williamson on The Liberal Gulag.

Welcome to the Liberal Gulag.

That term may be perverse, but it is not an exaggeration. Mr. [Adam] Weinstein [of Mother Jones] specifically called for political activists, ranging from commentators to think-tank researchers, to be locked in cages as punishment for their political beliefs. “Those denialists should face jail,” he wrote. “You still can’t” — banality alert! — “yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. You shouldn’t be able to yell ‘balderdash’ at 10,883 scientific journal articles a year.” “Balderdash” — a felony. At the risk of being repetitious, let’s dwell on that for a minute: The Left is calling on people to be prosecuted for speaking their minds regarding their beliefs on an important public-policy question that is, as a political matter, the subject of hot dispute. That is the stuff of Soviet repression.

And much more.

Even Michelangelo Signorile shows No Self-Awareness

In the comments to V’s post, Even Andrew Sullivan Is Disgusted with the Gay Left, commenter Donny D has kindly pointed us to Signorile’s scoop that proves the Left’s sincerity about rainbows and tolerance:

Dear Andrew Sullivan, ‘Left-Liberal Intolerance’ Did Not Bring Down Mozilla’s CEO…

According to Sullivan, the gay mafia has struck again, destroying [Mozilla ex-CEO Brendan Eich] and bringing him down because he would not conform to its thinking…

But…it wasn’t the Prop 8 contribution, and Eich’s refusal to renounce it, that eventually did Eich in. He was being defended by company executives…Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed late Wednesday that he’d given money to Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul’s campaign…

It all just became too much for Mozilla to bear…It’s about a company based in Northern California that has many progressive employees…

Get it? In Signorile’s world,

  • left-wing progressives *are not* a Mafia that viciously hounds anybody who deviates from their orthodoxy of thought…
  • because left-wing progressives *did not* destroy Eich over his crimethinkful deviation on Prop 8 (a deviation shared by a great many Obama supporters that year, 2008)…
  • rather, left-wing progressives destroyed Eich over his crimethinkful deviations on Ron Paul, and on Pat Buchanan way back in 1992.

Which deviations naturally merit a campaign of personal destruction, making the destruction perfectly understandable within a proper concept of tolerance. (cough)

To be clear, I don’t like what Buchanan stood for in the 1992 campaign, either. But “that was then” and, rather more importantly, I get it that freedom is a 2-way street. “Freedom means freedom for everybody.”

And Signorile’s use of Ron Paul is fascinating. Signorile is saying, in effect, that consistent support for small government and individual liberty (what Paul stands for) is unforgiveable. Boy, I sure am impressed with the Left’s wonderful tolerance for freedom of thought, now.

Even Andrew Sullivan Is Disgusted with the Gay Left

The hounding of Brendan Eich has inspired Andrew Sullivan to direct some disapprobation toward some people who actually deserve it for a  change.

His flaw lies in assuming the progressive left wants a “tolerant and diverse society.” They don’t. Read the responses to his Tweet. Most of them are totally on-board with intolerance and witch-hunts.

The gay left is reveling in their power to ruin anyone whose opinion is not in line with what they consider acceptable. As I said before, they are only going to get more obnoxious.

Nick Adds: Naturally, Mozilla closed comments on their milquetoast post about ‘diversity’ in relation to their decision. (Trackbacks are open, but such a cowardly and pandering move doesn’t deserve the mention, so sorry GP fans, you’ll have to search it out yourself.) How disgusting. I think it was Greg Gutfeld who said (something along the lines of): Diversity is great until you point out any way in which people are different.

Andrew (who I once respected immensely) gets a rare broken-clock nail-on-the-head here. As someone who’s perplexed by the Gay Kommunity’s fascination with marriage (why anybody would actively invite the government to involve itself in his personal relationships is beyond me and the topic of a million other posts I’ve written or at least considered writing, but beside the point…), I find their suppressionist approach is stomach-wrenching in its hypocrisy considering the alleged and self-declared oppression of this subset of society.

Explaining the Derangement of the Progressive Left

It seems Jeff and I have been doing more than a few posts lately cataloguing the angry derangement of the left. All of this anger, shrillness, violent pathology, intolerance, rage, and rejection of logic coming from those who claim to be the most peceaful, tolerant, and rational members of society creates a paradox. How can a progressive claim to be rationale, and yet consistently favor discredited and unsustainable economic policies? How can a progressive claim to be tolerant, yet demand that all contrary opinion be shouted down and dissidents be jailed? How can a progressive claim to believe all races are equal, but demand that blacks and hispanics be treated as inferiors that need to be condescended to and acccommodated because they just can’t be expected to perform as well as white people if all are treated equally?  And the greatest paradox of all; how are progressive leftists so blind to their own contradictions and hypocrisy?

(Progressive Leftist: “Um, because You’re a RACIST!!!”)

John C. Wright Attempts to explain:

The theory must explain, first, the honest decency of the modern liberals combined with their astonishing indifference, nay, hostility to facts, common sense, and evidence; second, it must explain their high self-esteem (or, to be blunt, their pathological narcissism) combined not merely with an utter lack of accomplishment, but with their utter devotion to destructiveness, a yearning to ruin everything they touch; third, it must explain their sanctimoniousness combined with their applause, praise, support, and tireless efforts to spread all perversions (especially sexual), moral decay, vulgarity, and every form of desecration; fourth, their pretense of intellectual superiority combined with their notorious mental fecklessness; fifth, it must explain both their violence and their pacifism; sixth, the theory must explain why they hate the very things they should love most; seventh, the theory must explain why they are incapable of comprehending an honest disagreement or any honorable foe.

The essay attempts to arrive at this theory, and as such, has to cover a lot of ground, and uses a lot of big words and philosophical concepts that would be utterly lost on the typical progressive Obama-voter. But it sort of comes down to this.

How can anyone continue to be a Leftist for a week, much less for a lifetime?

The answer, allow me to remind the patient reader, grows out of their theory. Again, their theory of knowledge is that there is no knowledge, no truth, only bigoted opinion. The only way to avoid bigotry is to avoid judgment and the use of reason. Avoiding reason necessitates a theory of morality that denies cause and effect. No vice causes loss, no virtue causes happiness. Hence life is a random roulette wheel. If there are no vices and virtues, not even the intellectual virtues of honest thinking, then no independent thought is desired or permitted. Instead, all thoughts are determined by social cues. Thought is collective.

The whole point of Liberal theory from start to finish is to form earplugs to smother the ringing of that alarm clock called reality.

The Leftists are people who abandon their innate intelligence and moral stature and who  deliberately make themselves to be stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average, who at once combine the worst features of a self-deceived fool and a self-deceiving conniving con-man. The only thing that saves them from the constant pain of the dentist drill of their conscience, the constant clamor of their wretched self-esteem telling them that they do not deserve to live, the only thing, indeed, keeping them alive, is their false and inflated sense of sanctimony.

Progressive Leftist Mozilla Employees Accuse CEO of Thoughtcrime; Demand Resignation

Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich has a political opinion that employees disagree with. Therefore, he must be punished.

Some employees at Mozilla, the non-profit organization behind the Firefox browser, are calling on new CEO Brendan Eich to resign.

Mozilla workers are upset with Eich because he supported Proposition 8 and donated to the politicians who backed it.

Prop 8 was a Californian ballot-proposition banning same-sex marriage. It was officially rejected in February 2012.

Those who have a different opinion than the Progressive Left must be punished… because tolerance.

The Left Turns its Race-Hysteria on One of its Own

Stephen Colbert has been accused of racism by humorless leftists who 1. Didn’t get the joke and 2. Are perfectly fine when this sort of humor is directed at conservatives (which, technically, it was but in their deranged race-hysteria, the left can’t figure that out).

“I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever,” “The Colbert Report” Twitter wrote Thursday.

The joke was taken from a bit on Wednesday night’s “The Colbert Report,” parodying Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder and his launch of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation in light of controversy over the team name. Taken out of context, however, many Twitter users saw the joke as racist, and launched a #CancelColbert campaign that quickly became a trending topic.

Believe it or not, there was a time when entertainment wasn’t subject to the outrage of puritanical leftist race-fascists.

Oh, and also, Kobe Bryant is also being targeted for a boycott by African-American activists, because he committed the unpardonable (for an African-American) sin of thinking for himself:

When McGrath asked Bryant’s opinion on the Miami Heat’s show of solidarity with Trayvon Martin in the now iconic “hoodie” photo, the LA Lakers star stated:

“I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African-American,” Bryant said. “That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well, we’ve progressed as a society, then don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African-American. You sit and you listen to the facts just like you would in any other situation, right? So I won’t assert myself.”

Oh, and I almost forgot about this: An editor of Ebony magazine beclowned herself by calling Juan Williams’s son a “white dude,” and then continued to beclown herself in offering the “I’m sorry I mistook you for a white person” defense.

Should fake hate crimes really be called “hoaxes”?

In my occasional posting on “hate crimes” that were faked by the victims (usually leftists), like many people I call such incidents “hoaxes”. But is that the right word?

hoax
hōks/
noun: hoax; plural noun: hoaxes

1. a humorous or malicious deception.

While faked hate crimes are malicious, in no way are they humorous. But I have a more serious objection. Calling these incidents “hoaxes” implies, not only that the incident was faked, but also that no real hate was involved. And I think that’s wrong.

We know that the Left is preoccupied with categorizing people by race, gender, orientation, etc. We know that emotions like envy, hatred, etc. are prevalent on the Left. We know that racism is a traditional province of the Left (such as the racism of Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood; or that of the Democrats who bequeathed the KKK and Jim Crow to America; or that of the Nazis, who were, after all, pro-worker advocates of ‘mixed economy’ socialism). And we know that even modern-day leftists will say the most racist things to be heard anywhere, if they think no one is listening except their fellow leftists.

Why, then, should we assume that a hate crime faked by a political lefty is really all that fake? When a leftist fakes a hate crime, he or she has tried to mislead people as to the crime’s author. But how is he or she not still doing a deeply hateful act?

For at least some modern-day leftists, it must be agony to have to be officially so anti-racism, all the time. Would not hate crime “hoaxes” express the repressed hatreds of their own hearts?

This question matters, because the word “hoax” sets up a dynamic where the leftist hoaxer is morally off the hook. “Oh don’t be hard on them, they just got carried away by their zeal to start a ‘conversation’ about race.” Golly, ya think?

Might it be that, due to their own racial preoccupations and (repressed) hatreds, lefties enjoy ‘conversations about race’ rather too much? A successfully-faked hate crime is a two-fer for the leftie hoaxer: He got everyone discussing his favorite obsession, and in the process, he actually hurt the victim group’s feelings (thus indulging his unadmitted hatred).

In creating a dynamic where the leftie hoaxer is morally off the hook, the word “hoax” also creates a dynamic where conservatives are still to blame, even though the crime was faked and even though a leftie did it. Because another implication is that if a conservative-leaning person had done it, it wouldn’t be a hoax. The implication is that a hate crime by a conservative is real by definition, because conservatives are h8ers who do such crimes; while a hate crime by a leftist is “just a hoax” by definition, because lefties are against hate crimes and never do them without a noble reason.

And that is, of course, total baloney. So, what would be a better word, for these faked hate crimes?

Another racism hoax

The year 2013 saw the Oberlin College racism hoax (which I commented on, here). Ugly, hateful racial comments appeared on the Oberlin campus, done by…two left-wing “progressive” students. Later, there was another hoax at Vassar College.

To keep up the tradition (I guess), we have the Grand Valley SU racism hoax of 2014. PuffHo commenters duly condemned America when it first came up but, in the words of the GVSU campus police, “The person believed to be responsible for the [hateful] drawing and language written on the dry erase board is a Grand Valley student and the owner of the message board.”

Lesson: When dealing with dramatic reports of hate crimes, wait for either (1) multiple, eyewitness reports of the deed as it was being done, or (2) a police report. Especially if it’s a college campus.

From the comments: Hate crime “hoaxes” are numerous and Jman linked two lists that people have compiled, here and here.

Something Else Islamists and Progressives Agree On

Posted by V the K at 7:10 am - March 20, 2014.
Filed under: Leftist Nutjobs,Liberal Intolerance

Images-cfiv-0004

Under Sharia, the penalty for “blasphemy,” (i.e. speaking critically of Islam or “The Prophet of Islam”) is severe, and can include brutal death. Some within the Progressive Global Warming Cult would like there to be similar penalties for speaking critically of Global Warming Dogma.

[Rochester Institute of Technology Philosophy Professor Lawrence] Torcello wants governments to make “the funding of climate denial” a crime.

“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”

Torcello cites as precedent the criminal prosecution of six scientists in Italy for failing to predict an earthquake. A Libertarian or a Conservative looks at such prosecutions as a cautionary example of what tyranny and dogma lead to; to a progressive leftist, they are apparently a template. Both radical Islamists and Progressive Global Warmists share a common belief that it is dangerous to allow people to think for themselves.

On a related note, the press has been effectively banned from covering Michelle Obama’s Tour of China next week. The White House also refuses to divulge how many millions and millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent on Her Majesty’s latest Lux Vacation.

Update: A BBC Program ironically titled “Free Speech” chose to cut-off discussion on the question “When will it be all right to be Muslim and gay?” ostensibly so as to not give offense to Muslims (Bad Enough); in reality, an honest Muslim answer would have exposed their intolerance and belligerence toward gays; which progressives are in complete denial about (Worse).

Gawker Wants You to Hate Mr. Jerry Seinfeld

Posted by V the K at 6:35 am - February 4, 2014.
Filed under: Liberal Intolerance

Because Mr. Seinfeld said in an interview that race doesn’t matter in comedy, only making funny matters, and according to The Gawker website, that’s racist!

Jerry Seinfeld, the most successful comedian in the world and maker of comedy for and about white people, isn’t interested in trying to include non-white anything in his work.

When asked why he featured so many white men in his web series Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee during a Buzzfeed interview on CBS This Morning, Seinfeld seemed offended by the very question. “It really pisses me off,” he said. “People think [comedy] is the census or something, it’s gotta represent the actual pie chart of America. Who cares?”

BuzzFeed Business Editor Peter Lauria seemed hesitant to pursue the frank answer, but the comedian continued on anyway. “Funny is the world that I live in. You’re funny, I’m interested. You’re not funny, I’m not interested,” he said. “I have no interest in gender or race or anything like that.” He seems to suggest that any comedian who is not a white male is also not funny, though he’s also likely fed up with the amount of bad comedy he’s been forced to sit through in his (waning) career.

Which is too bad, because Seinfeld is downplaying the work of everyone from Richard Pryor and Bill Cosby to Aziz Ansari, Mindy Kaling, and Eddie Huang, who are all in various stages of their own sitcoms that just might turn out to be the next Seinfeld….

In conclusion: Yes, comedy should represent the entire pie chart of America, and the glorious, multicolored diversity pie should be thrown directly at Jerry Seinfeld’s face.

Hat Tip: Legal Insurrection. (No direct link to Gawker because I suspect the point of this silly column is trolling for clicks by being “outrageous.”)

Hate Chicken Spreading Hate Because Hate

Posted by V the K at 1:06 pm - January 30, 2014.
Filed under: Liberal Intolerance

Chik-Fil-A is one of the many, many, many things hated with the white-hot passion of a million exploding suns by the progressive left because its owners committed the unforgivable sin of disagreeing with them on the issue of gay marriage and are, therefore, a million times worse than Hitler, Genghis Khan, Gul Dukat, and Tamerlane combined.  (That last reference should send some of our leftist participants to the Google machine.)

As a result, Chik-Fil-A is nicknamed “H8 Chicken” by people who are cheeky and fun, and also by dour leftists who are cruel and tragic.  I use the name “Hate Chicken” in the former sense, as I do with all my affectionate nicknames.

Anyway, guess what those hate-filled haters at H8 Chicken were up to this week: Providing free hate sandwiches to drivers stranded when ManBearPig (a cheeky fun name for what the dour left calls Climate Change) struck metropolitan Atlanta this week.

Some of the drivers had been stuck in their cars for nearly seven hours without any food or water. So the staff of the Chick-fil-A decided to lend a helping hand.

“We cooked several hundred sandwiches and stood out on both sides of 280 and handed out the sandwiches to anyone we could get to – as long as we had food to give out.”

The staffers braved the falling snow and ice, slipping and sliding, as they offered hot juicy chicken breasts tucked between two buttered buns. And Chick-fil-A refused to take a single penny for their sandwiches.

The meal was a gift – no strings attached.

Sigh. So much hate in the world. How can a tender heart bear it?