Gay Patriot Header Image

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?

 

Lefties: No moral self-confidence – and fearfully proud of it

I had a lunch discussion recently with two former co-workers. Both of these men are engineers in their 30s who are fairly hard-working, competent and successful, pulling six-figure salaries. In the free and dynamic America of yore, these men would be proud of where their choices in life had taken them. But this is 2014, they are white, and they are MSDNC-watching left-liberals in a “Blue” area.

“Mark” started saying how lucky he feels to be an engineer because the work is physically so much easier and safer than being a field worker or factory hand, and pays more. I agreed, while reminding Mark that the work is mentally exhausting, something much-demanded by society (the market), and something most people wouldn’t even attempt. In other words, reminding Mark that he deserves his salary.

As if to answer me, “Ross” instantly went into a description of himself as “born into privilege”, saying how he had never really chosen anything in his life, but his course has always been determined by the social forces pushing him along and granting him privilege. This was strange, because I know for a fact that Ross works hard, which is a choice right there. So I reminded him of the constant stream of choices that he faces – be it as simple as “go back to work after this lunch, or not?” – and how those choices affect his results, like having a salary or not.

I won’t bore you with too many details. The conversation continued as a debate of Free Will implying self-responsibility and pro-liberty politics, vs. Social Determinism implying “you didn’t build that” and re-distributive, left-wing politics. We didn’t get into politics much; it lurked in the background.

But I want to tell you about the discussion’s ending. Here’s the short version: I was nice enough, yet Ross and Mark were red-faced with anger and embarrassment – because they didn’t “win”. I punctured their bubble.

At first, Ross could not process my point that all people have choices, by which they determine their own success. Asking near-childlike questions, he had me explain the concept over and over. “What if a person is born in poverty?” I’d explain how poverty is indeed a circumstance shaping the person’s life; but they still choose their *response* to it. Poverty may limit a person’s range of choices, but even poor people still face a stream of choices, that only ends when a person dies.

If a poor person joins a gang or develops a drug habit – and sticks with it, in adult life – that’s a series of choices they made. Likewise if, for better success, they work hard to get a G.E.D. and become a shift manager at the local McDonald’s, it is a series of choices they made. Likewise, my life-long self-education has been a choice. Thus I explained.

As Ross caught on, he correctly saw the implication that the McDonald’s shift manager would *deserve* her success being greater than the gang member’s or drug addict’s – just as he, Mark and I each deserve our success. And Ross didn’t like that idea. Smiling his best “Jane, you ignorant slut” type of patronizing smile, he suggested that I was out to rationalize backward, unjust notions.

With a smile right back, I pointed out that nobody was rationalizing anything; my success having come from my hard work and personal choices was not a rationalization, but a fact; and a fact that his determinist philosophy badly needed to deal with. That was the exact moment when Ross turned beet-red.

His words turned sarcastic (suggesting anger), while his voice turned quavery (suggesting anxiety). I could see that Mark, now silent, was also getting red – with a deer-in-the-headlights look of uncertainty around his eyes.

Mind you, nobody raised voices in this discussion; nobody called names or made the least of personal attacks. All I did was display my moral confidence, my certain knowledge that I had earned my success – and imply that Mark and Ross should also be morally self-confident, as they had earned theirs.

My doing that alone, nothing more, made these two men visibly feel both uncertain and violated. The interaction ended there, as we’d run out of time. I think it says a lot about left-liberals.

Lefties live in a world where lack of moral self-confidence is a required personality trait. Humility is not required; leftists usually proclaim their beliefs with arrogant certainty. But among those beliefs is a dogma to the effect that no one, including the leftie, *deserves* to have any confidence or any certainty, since no one is ever better than the worst “poor” criminal out there. Any educated, enlightened person must genuflect and display his official, dogmatic lack of confidence that he could ever be right about anything. THEN he can go on to make arrogant proclamations (provided they are left-wing).

If someone shows a different way of being – if someone thinks differently from the leftie, and has moral confidence in doing so – showing, for example, confidence that her success is deserved – many a leftie will find that person threatening. Tactic A is to smile and patronize the person as benighted; perhaps tactic B would be ridicule. If neither works – if the tables are turned, if the left-liberal’s worldview is punctured or exposed as the hollow thing it is – then the average leftie will go into fear and anger.

Sad!

They warned me if I voted for Mitt Romney, women would be punished for expressing political opinions

Intolerance.

A famed actress is facing backlash in San Francisco’s Latino community, after she voiced support for a conservative candidate for California governor.

Maria Conchita Alonso starred in a campaign ad for Assemblyman Tim Donnelly of San Bernardino County, a Tea Party favorite who is seeking the Republican nomination.

The actress was to perform next month at the Brava Theater Center in San Francisco’s Mission District in a Spanish-language version of “The Vagina Monologues,” scheduled for a run from February 14th through 17th. The show is being produced by none other than Eliana Lopez, wife of San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.

“We really cannot have her in the show, unfortunately,” Lopez told KPIX 5. She said Alonso abruptly resigned from the cast on Friday, given the backlash on the immigration issue.

As the motto of La Raza (lit. “The Race”) states, “Within the Race, Everything. Outside the Race, Nothing.”

So, why is the Establishment GOP so Eager to accommodate this gang of racists?

Cuomo: “Don’t Let the Sun Set on You in New York, Tea-Bagger”

Posted by V the K at 4:55 pm - January 17, 2014.
Filed under: Liberal Intolerance

New York’s Democrat Governor, Andrew Cuomo, often touted as a presidential prospect, has zero tolerance for anyone who isn’t pro-abortion, anti-Second Amendment, and isn’t all-in for punishing bakers who don’t want to make gay wedding cakes.

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

Get it? Anyone who disagrees with gun control, disagrees with abortion-on-demand, disagrees with gay marriage is an “extremist,” and is unwelcome in New York. And I bet he also faults conservatives for being “divisive” and “non-inclusive” too.

Of course, no sensible person would want to live in his over-taxed, over-regulated, decaying hellhole of a state anyway.

Update: If Cuomo wants to drive everyone who supports the right to keep and bear arms out of his fiefdom, he better start rounding them up. If the map below is legit (and it appears to be), he’s got a lot of “extremists” in his state.

(more…)

GLAAD, Blacklists, and Acceptable Fascism

‘With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured…the first thought forbidden…the first freedom denied–chains us all irrevocably.’ Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom…and warning. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we’re all damaged.” – Star Trek: The Next Generation “The Drumhead

Hollywood used to think blacklists and the suppression of free speech were terrible things when applied to communists who were working to undermine and destroy the United States of America; but blacklists and suppression are now good things when used to advance the Gay Agenda. But GLAAD has shown them that blacklisting can be a very effective tool in squashing free speech that they don’t agree with.

Within hours of GLAAD’s publication of my addition to the list, which amounts to an excommunication from polite society, an e-mail was sent to the president of my university, along with dozens of other high officials in California, with the announcement: ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ PLACED ON GLAAD WATCH LIST.

Aside from that one fling on Al Jazeera, since GLAAD placed me on their blacklist, no secular media outlet has invited me on its show in the United States.  In-depth interviews with me have been broadcast in Chile, Russia, France, Ireland, and a number of other nations.  In the United States, Christian broadcasters like the American Family Association and Frank Sontag’s “Faith and Reason” show in Los Angeles have interviewed me.  And I’d been interviewed, prior to the GLAAD blacklisting, by Minnesota affiliates of NBC, CBS, Fox, and NPR, as well as a number of newspapers.  Since GLAAD’s blacklisting, none.

Prior to GLAAD’s blacklisting, I had received calls from people at universities discussing their interest in having me come to campus and give speeches.  Three were working with me to set up dates.  Since GLAAD’s blacklisting, none.  Those who had discussed this with me said point-blank that their superiors did not want to create controversy.

The idea behind this form of proactive speech suppression is simple; punish one man and terrify a thousand more into silence for fear of losing their careers, their income, their social standing.

And underneath it all, leftist progressives don’t really respect teh gheys, they just patronize them for the sake of political correctness, so they can flaunt their “tolerance” they way Victorians flaunted their piety. But every once in a while, the mask slips, as with Alec Baldwin, Al Franken, Tracy Morgan and others… and gay leftists are made aware of the sad little secret that those who are supposed to be their biggest supporters privately loathe and ridicule them.

I imagine that explains at least some of their inconsulable bitterness.

Lefty Fey Outrage About PajamaBoy and Duck Dynasty

Ace takes note of a lefty setzpinkler who thinks he’s figured out why Conservatives have been making fun of Obamacare spokesmodel PajamaBoy. It’s because Conservatives hate gays.

I had no idea that left-wing pundits had Professor Charles Xavier-level telepathic abilities and were able to read the minds of all Conservatives everywhere all the time!

Also, GLAAD is throwing a hissy-fit because one of the stars of Duck Dynasty expressed an opinion about gay people that hurt their feelers.

GLAAD has condemned “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson in the wake of inflammatory remarks about gay people.

In January’s issue of GQ, Robertson said that “homosexual offenders” will not “inherit the Kingdom of God” and unfavorably compared “a man’s anus” to the vagina.

The gay rights group was quick to denounce his comments.  In a statement, GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz slammed the Robertson family patriarch:

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

On one level, I don’t get the mindset that says you can’t be happy if someone, somewhere doesn’t approve of your lifestyle. What’s the Big Deal if a guy on a cable TV show doesn’t like you? Obsession that someone, somewhere might disapprove of you seems like a cripplingly neurotic way to go through life. (We’ll leave aside, for the moment, the obsession secular leftists have with judging what “true Christians” should and should not believe.)

On another level, I understand it completely. Faux outrage generates publicity. Publicity generates donations. Donations ensure that Wilson Cruz can keep his cushy job as an outraged spokesperson for GLAAD and not have to get a real job in the miserable Obamaconomy. Such generosity is what earned Alec Baldwin a pass from GLAAD for his repeated use of anti-gay slurs.

Update: A&E caves to intolerant bigots.

(more…)

Leftist Panel Bashes Christianity, Reiterates Hackneyed Cliches

A panel of left-wing groups (including the Human Rights Campaign) meeting in Washington DC declared that religious liberty is a threat to the leftist social agenda, and must be stopped at all costs.

The audience received a similar narrative of religious beliefs functioning as a Trojan horse for discrimination from ACLU senior counsel Eunice Rho, who denounced attempts to pass a Religious Freedom Restoration Act in various states.

“These are very dangerous because they can allow religion to be used to harm others,” Rho said.

You see, religion, like all else in a progressive, secular society, exists only to serve the needs of the State.

And, of course, what left-wing panel would be complete without the hackneyed recitation of grievances and tiresome cliches.

“People [are] using the term ‘liberty’ when they really mean ‘my liberty, your slavery,’” the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said during the discussion. Gaddy compared Christian florists who don’t want to provide service for gay weddings to employers who posted “whites only” signs in their windows.

Yeah, the Jim Crow persecution of blacks is precisely and equally identical to gays having to go across the street to a different baker to get a wedding cake because… feelings!

And if you open a business, you give up your Constitutional Rights to Free Speech, Free Association, and the Free Exercise of Religion. So sayeth the left.

Name that theme

Sometimes you’ll be scanning headlines at your favorite locations, and a common element will jump out at you. Consider:

The common element is, of course, the Left’s penchant for dictatorship and thuggery.

Freedom of Speech: It must be a two-way street…

…or else it’s just a pretense, a lie.

Reporter James Kirchik, known from TNR and The Advocate, was cut off last week on Russia’s RT network for denouncing Vladimir Putin’s anti-gay law. I’m with Kirchik in opposing the law, which puts speech restrictions on Russian gays.

Don’t get me wrong: As RT were ‘paying for his mic’, they had every right to cut off Kirchik. They have no obligation to provide him with a platform. Still, Kirchik deserves our cheers and thanks for publicly thumbing his nose at a State-funded propaganda network and for defending free speech.

Actions to support free speech, yay! But free speech isn’t free speech, unless disagreeable/bad views may also be expressed. The principle is that anyone advocating bad politics is to be answered by more speech; never to be silenced by law.

And that brings us to the case of the Rev. Scott Lively. In a blog thread last week, rusty brought up Lively, who is being sued in Massachusetts at the behest of a Uganda gay group, for his advocacy of the criminalizing of homosexuality in Uganda.

Criminalizing homosexuality is anti-gay (a term that the Gay Left otherwise uses too much) and a violation of individuals’ natural rights. As such, it’s wrong. But natural rights include free speech and conscience. For someone to merely advocate that homosexuality be criminalized is not a violation of human rights; it is an exercise of them.

See the problem? The pro-gay side is out there using the law to restrict opponents’ political speech, in the name of human rights (which ought to include free speech). So wrong!

Sure, Rev. Lively advocates something dumb and bad. But he has the moral right to do it, which means he ought to have the legal right.

That a U.S.-based court presumes to deal with a Ugandan matter seems odd; but that it does so in order to punish anyone’s political advocacy is a disgrace, a sign of how dangerously low our once-great country has fallen.

SMUG (the Ugandan gay group) is wrong to try to silence Lively with a court case. Given that they are, the MA court should have refused to play along, on the grounds that the MA and U.S. Constitutions guarantee Lively his right to free speech in all political issues, even gay issues, even when international law fails to guarantee it and even, or especially, if Lively’s views are objectionable.

It’s the objectionable views – the ones that the government’s Court itself dislikes – that courts are most obligated to protect. By now, we are used to the Gay Left forgetting such basic principles of freedom and justice, but – “et tu, Massachusetts?”

UPDATE: It just occurred to me that the MA court, and others who blame the Rev. Lively for what Ugandan legislators do, might be infected with a racist premise: the premise that the Ugandans are mere children (intellectually and morally), influenced too easily by the white man (Lively), who is thus accountable for their actions. If true, it would support my earlier post on the racism of the Left in 2013.

NB: I had originally said that Lively was being “prosecuted” in MA, when of course I should have said “sued”. Mistake fixed.

The primary evidence of conservative racial prejudice. . .

. . . is liberal prejudice, their assumption that opposition to the president and his policies is based on race. And this assumption grows out of ignorance, a basic unfamiliarity with Republican ideas and conservative arguments.

Ted Cruz: Up next for destruction?

From Rich Lowry’s brief profile of Senator Cruz at Politico, he sounds pretty smart, like he might be an effective leader for small government (or the Tea Party, if you prefer).

So…is he next? As the Left has proven with Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and others: Any small-government leader with a bit of effectiveness or charisma MUST. BE. DESTROYED. REGARDLESS OF TRUTH. Especially if they could hold some appeal for women, blacks, or Hispanics.

Jammie Wearing Fools has gathered a few links on the nascent Cruz Derangement Syndrome.

Race, in 2013

A few interesting reads.

First, Gov. Bobby Jindal on “The End of Race”. He gets it. “There is no more shallow, hollow, or soulless way to think about human beings than in terms of their skin color. It is completely inane.” RTWT.

Next, Charles C. W. Cooke on the Oberlin College mess, in which left-wing activists terrorized the Oberlin campus with acts of overt racism – while university officials, who knew their true identities, did nothing.

People speak of ‘fake hate crimes’ or ‘a hoax’ there, and I understand why, but I find it superficial. I wonder how fake they were?

You see, the Left has a long history of being deeply racist. In earlier times, Democrats or other left-wing progressives defended slavery, gave America the KKK and Jim Crow, created Planned Parenthood for eugenics purposes, praised Mussolini and Hitler (who were themselves avowed socialists), segregated Japanese-Americans into internment camps (that was Franklin D. Roosevelt), resisted integration, etc.

21st-century leftists, such as Dylan Bleier and Matt Alden of Oberlin, try to race-bait in the opposite direction now (with whites to be put down, rather than made superior). But it’s still just the Left’s crude obsession with classifying and judging people by race. Bleier and Alden, I believe, merely found an indirect, progressive-activist, politically-correct way to act out the repressed racial hatreds of their own hearts.

Finally, Jonah Goldberg on “The ‘Race Conversation’ Network: MSNBC has mastered the art of making unracial things racial.” A quick run-down of those fun-loving TV hosts who somehow, endlessly, manage to hear racist dog whistles in every political expression or viewpoint they don’t like.

UPDATE: William A. Jacobsen summarizes the Oberlin race hoax, with good links. As I watched some of the video, I couldn’t help wondering for a brief moment if “concerned” progressives are some of the stupidest, most gullible people ever. (ADDENDUM:) But then I also thought of the adage, “hindsight is 20/20″.

The Establishment media, race and Zimmerman

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 4:40 am - July 15, 2013.
Filed under: Liberal Intolerance,Liberal Lies,Media Bias

I’ve seen the Establishment media get certain things wrong on the Zimmerman case, repeatedly. Especially on racial aspects, and it is time to call out two of them.

First, the alleged “racial profiling”. As the New York Times put it:

The case began in the small city of Sanford as a routine homicide but soon evolved into a civil rights cause examining racial profiling and its consequences…

…said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the N.A.A.C.P. “…we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed.”

Problem: The Zimmerman case has virtually nothing to do with racial profiling.

  1. Zimmerman wasn’t police; nothing he did was official.
  2. Zimmerman didn’t profile: he described Martin’s race (as “black”) just because a police dispatcher directly asked him to. Finally,
  3. If anyone profiled, it may have been Trayvon Martin, who allegedly profiled the Hispanic, neighborhood-patrolling Zimmerman as a white threat (a “creepy-ass cracker”).

Next, about Zimmerman’s race. I think race is a thoroughly stupid way to classify human beings. But, I don’t rule the world. As many know, Zimmerman’s mother is Peruvian and “Spanish was the primary language at home”. Per the same article, the family itself wanted to downplay all racial angles when all of this broke, but… clearly, they didn’t get their way. So, why does the Establishment media never simply describe Zimmerman as Hispanic?

Zimmerman is as Hispanic as President Obama is African-American (namely half, including parentage, cultural heritage/exposure, and choice of identity). Yet CNN and The New York Times weirdly call him “white Hispanic” (no hyphen), while others have used the bizarre – and possibly insulting – circumlocution “Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic”. Imagine if they called Obama “white Black”, or said “Obama identifies himself as African-American”. They never would, no matter how much Joe Biden wants them to.

Exit curiosity: If Zimmerman’s parents’ races were switched – so that he were almost the same person he is, in genetics and appearance, but happened to have a Peruvian last name – Would he have still been put on trial? Was anti-German bias at work?

FROM THE COMMENTS: In Baltimore, police investigate claims that black youths chased and beat a Hispanic man, shouting “This is for Trayvon.”

It’s difficult to say more until the claims pan out, but I’ll ask this: Obama chose to reinforce, rather than to correct, a painfully one-sided view of the Zimmerman-Martin case. Has his doing so already led to (more) tragedy? Also linked from the comments: numerous threats on the Zimmerman jurors.

UPDATE: I didn’t know about “watermelon lean”. After a commentor mentioned it a couple times, I googled around and stumbled across this year-old post at American Thinker, “What the Media Choose Not to Know about Trayvon”. It’s fascinating. It shows Martin as part of “urban America’s lost boy culture”, a culture which commits crime in disproportion to its numbers, and which the GayPatriot blog has perhaps touched on, indirectly before.

From the comments: What we must acknowledge about the left

In the comments for my last post on Obamacare commenter Ignatius began his discussion of the legislation’s undesirable albeit unstated aims with the observation: “I believe that political discussions would be much easier if those on the right jettisoned this quaint idea that leftists have good intentions.”  I highlighted that sentence in a subsequent comment, and other commenters took up the theme, as well.

Commenter Eddie Swaim observed:

While reading the comments about “the left,” it suddenly occurred to me that after listening to Rush Limbaugh for 25 years, he has always been careful to separate “the left” politicians in D.C. from “the left” common everyday folk. I always agreed with him but now I’m not so sure. Most of the gay male liberals that I know fall right in line with the D.C. politicians. Anything and everything is o.k. if it hurts [conservatism] or wins them a battle against the right, whether or not their action is legal or ethical. The ends always justify the means.

Likewise, commenter Steve linked to this video of Ann Coulter discussing the tendency of liberals and the lamestream media to fall back on “racial demagoguery” to advance their agenda in cases like the Zimmerman trial.

I thought of all three comments when I came across another link to an article by John Hawkins dated March 27, 2012.  Hawkins’ article is entitled “5 Uncomfortable Truths About Liberals,” and I encourage everyone to read the whole thing.  For the moment, though, I’ve summarized his five points below.  Hawkins writes that:

1) Most liberals are hateful people.

2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred.

3) Most liberals are less moral than other people.

4) Most liberals don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.

5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant.

Now while the language in those observations is strong enough that Hawkins could be accused of engaging in hyperbole, I think a certain amount of strong language is necessary for describing leftist rhetoric and means of argumentation.  There’s no need to take my word for it, though, read the whole thing and decide for yourself.

I would say, though, that in both the Zimmerman case and in the debates (and protests) over late-term abortion restrictions in Texas, we’ve seen many of the traits Hawkins describes displayed quite openly by many leftists.

Likewise, consider this article in The Advocate which a Facebook acquaintance brought to my attention.  The article focuses on the “mighty change of heart” which many Mormons have undergone on the issues of gay rights and gay marriage.  True to what both Hawkins and our commenters noted, most gay leftists will have none of it, as is very evident from their comments on the Advocate article.  Rather than welcome the changes underway in the LDS church, they are expressing their hatred and intolerance for the Mormons in very hostile language.  Read the comments there and see for yourself.

Now while I know a number of our readers might believe that the Mormons brought the hatred on themselves through the church’s advocacy against Proposition 8 in California in 2008, I’d point out a few things that the left never will, namely: 1). Despite what the HRC and its allies would have us believe, opposition to gay marriage isn’t necessarily motivated by hate, however easy or convenient it may be to believe that, and 2). Individuals are and should be defined by more than their affiliation with some group or collective.  The gay left is always up in arms about what this group or that group said or did about some gay issue, but they never have qualms about denouncing or smearing or insulting members of that group in a similar manner.

Why would they think silencing their critics is the best way to win debates?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:22 pm - May 12, 2013.
Filed under: Liberal Intolerance,Random Thoughts

Liberal activists,” Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post, “unable to win the argument against Rush Limbaugh, try to silence him instead.” (H/t HotAir headlines.)

Wonder if that is what the IRS was trying to do with the Tea Party.

Silencing and slurring those with poltically incorrect views

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:18 pm - April 12, 2013.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Liberal Intolerance

Pick any issue currently being advanced by progressives“, writes Doug Manwaring today in the American Thinker:

. . . same-sex marriage, state-mandated free contraception, abortion, man-made global warming and strict gun control, to name a few. Publicly question or resist any of these and be prepared to be judged as an anti-science, homophobic, misogynist, racist, xenophobic, Neanderthal.

As with little Anthony, to attempt to enter into legitimate discussion or debate on these issues is out of the question, and met with severe consequences. Your have only two options: Start thinking “happy thoughts,” or brace yourself for the cornfield.

Read the whole thing.  H/t: reader Heliotrope. Manwaring cites an episode of the Twilight Zone where little Anthony Freeman with his special powers will banish you to the cornfield if you don’t think “happy thoughts” or “say happy things.”

Even if we don’t agree with Manwaring on gay marriage (he’s gay, but believes ” the definition of Marriage is immutable”), we can at least recognize that instead of addressing the arguments of their critics, all too many gay marriage advocates resort to name-calling and ostracism of individuals who oppose their cause.

How often do they accuse such opponents of hatred?  (More on this topic as time allows.)

Brave kid

In Ace’s “Headlines” sidebar, I just noticed this post at FreedomWorks: 15 Year Old Wisconsin Conservative Meets Bullying From Teachers.

Worth a skim. To be clear: By “bullying”, he does not mean physical assault, but rather a series of moral-emotional assaults from teachers who single him out for questioning (sometimes invasive) and ridicule. From Mr. Backer’s conclusion:

If teachers want bullying to end with homosexuals, other races or religious beliefs, they should want it to end with every type of bullying possible, including political views.

I haven’t done any research that would let me vouch for Mr. Backer’s story, but if it’s true, it’s chilling. Or, to say something more positive: that kid has guts!