Gay Patriot Header Image

Cliven Bundy and Imperial Washington

While illegal immigrants are over-running and the Obama Administration is going out of its way to avoid any enforcement of immigration laws; they managed to muster hundreds of heavily armed (with real guns, not the beanbag guns border patrol agents are mandated to use), armored vehicles, and helicopters to punish one rancher in Nevada for grazing his cows. (In the process, tasering his son, killing his cows and breaking up his stuff.)

It’s pretty simple really, Democrats don’t agree with immigration laws, so they don’t enforce them. On the other hand, they do believe in environmental laws, and their mentality toward those laws is exemplified by EPA Adminsitrator Al Armendariz; who compared the EPA’s enforcement tactics to those of the Roman Empire: “Kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean: they’d go into little Turkish towns somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they’d run into, and they’d crucify them. That town was really easy to manage for the next few years.” Basically, the idea was to crucify Cliven Bundy as an example to terrorize the remaining ranchers to bend to the will of the State.

It’s alarming, or at least it should be, that Federal bureaucrats see themselves as Roman occupiers, and the citizenry as subjects who need to be terrorized in order to maintain control.

Leftists: Still running amok

They’re still claiming that any opposition to leftism could only be motivated by racism. Here, Rep. Steve Israel (D) says it back-hand style:

Candy: Do you think your Republican colleagues are racist?

Israel: Not all of them, no. Of course not. But to a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism.

They’re still demanding that their failures be subsidized and bailed out. Here, a “green” solar company sues the government for only having dished it $250 million of taxpayer money, instead of millions more.

They’re still using highly questionable statistics to demagogue the issue of equal pay for men and women.

They’re still fighting their ‘war’ on Fox News, and failing – sometimes with hilarious results. The video shows Greta van Susteren cornering an aggressive Democrat into admitting that he lied about his resume.

They’re still racially divisive with amazing double standards. Here, a Democrat belittles her African-American GOP colleague for being only “half” black. Which, remember, happens to be what President Obama is.

They still have amazing double standards on the issues of Islam, free speech and women’s rights. Last week, leftists hit a triple (the wrong positions on all three) when Brandeis snubbed Ayaan Hirsi Ali after considering her for an honorary degree.

They’re still screeching “McCarthyism!” to deflect attention from their misconduct, as Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) did last week, when questions arose over his own staff’s collusion with the dangerously out-of-control IRS.

UPDATE: At least there’s hope for Wisconsin:

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has had a good run lately. He signed a major tax relief package into law, his controversial budget reforms have put the state back in the black…A new poll from Wisconsin Public Radio suggests that voters are appreciative of the governor’s accomplishments. Walker leads Democrat Mary Burke by 16 points in the survey (56/40), with Walker’s approval rating soaring to just shy of 60 percent — an all-time high in the series. (President Obama’s job approval is underwater at 48/50 in the poll). Walker’s lead is fueled by a 19-point advantage among independents…

Leviathan Unleashed

Helicopters, armored vehicles, thousands of heavily armed Federal Agents in body armor, snipers, all dispatched (allegedly) in the service of punishing a rancher for grazing his cows. (I guess the Government needs to shake down ranchers to make up for the $6,000,000,000.00 Hillary Clinton “misplaced” while she was running the State Department.)

Update: Apparently the BLM has backed down for the time being. Interesting that when the Government “loses,” no one dies. Compare to Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the Government “won.”

Wild Horses-Tension Growing

Bundy3

Bundy4

Do you think if one of Harry Reid’s cronies could make money off of it, we could get this kind of coverage at the Southern Border?

Tell me, lefty progressives, is this the America you envisioned when you voted for Barack Obama?

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.

One reason (of many) to #BanBossy

Remember a couple of years ago, Hillary yukking it up over the death of a foreign head of State? “We came, we saw, he died! (har har)”

YouTube Preview Image

Granted that the victim (Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi) was an enemy and dictator who probably deserved it; still, I can’t recall any of Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, or George W. Bush ever showing such ugly pleasure in the death of any other human being.

If I’m mistaken – if there is a comparable example, from one of Bush Cheney Rice – please remind me in the comments.

UPDATE: Garry Kasparov, the anti-Putin dissident and former chess champion, just tweeted another possible reason to #BanBossy:

Hillary was the captain of the Titanic that was US-Russia relations as Secretary of State. Her as admiral of whole fleet makes me nervous!

Not to change the subject, but Kasparov’s new article at Politico reminds us who Putin is.

Well, Okay Then.

Posted by V the K at 2:12 am - March 2, 2014.
Filed under: Mean-spirited leftists

Seen outside a Harlem Church.

1960913_10151902282885899_673284028_o_s640x480

The Pastor also says that Obama is “Uncle Tom for Wall Street.”

So, I guess you can choose to get all wee-wee’d up about this, or you can point and laugh and get on with your life because you’re a grown up who understands that not everybody has to like you. I choose the latter.

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.

Saturday Morning Content Dump

Mainly because I couldn’t bear the thought of Chris Hayes talking about teh buttsecks being the top item on the blog all weekend, here’s a few news stories to discuss.

Oh, BTW, have you heard the hypocrites at A&E are running Duck Dynasty marathons all Christmas week? You know, Phil Robertson gave the interview two months ago, and there was an A&E “minder” present during the interview. So, now this all comes out? Lends credence to the theory that the suits at A&E hated Duck Dynasty and were looking for a way to kill the franchise.

(more…)

Martin Bashir resigns

Follow-up to an earlier post, Why wasn’t this guy fired? After a couple of weeks, Bashir has resigned from MSNBC. As Allahpundit puts it:

This is a guy who took Mormon-themed digs at Mitt Romney; brought on a shrink to analyze the allegedly violent, possibly psychotic tendencies of tea partiers; accused Republicans of treating the word “IRS” as a racist dog-whistle against Obama; and wondered if Rick Santorum wasn’t some sort of theocratic second coming of Stalin. When Steve Jobs died two years ago, he turned his on-air eulogy into an excuse to — ta da — bash Sarah Palin again. All of this is par for the course on MSNBC so imagine Bashir’s surprise, after all of that, upon finding out that introducing a little actual rhetorical scat into the figurative scat-flinging at righties was an unpardonable sin worthy of suspension.

I just say: Better late than never!

Why wasn’t this guy fired?

The background is recent remarks of Sarah Palin’s:

Palin said that the debt being accumulated will result in the next generation being “beholden to the foreign master.”

“Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children and borrowing from China,” Palin told a crowd of supporters…“When that money comes due – and this isn’t racist, but it’ll be like slavery when that note is due. We are going to beholden to the foreign master.”

It’s more likely that we will default on our debt, so Palin is not 100% correct. But she’s well on the right track. You always know she is, when she gets the Left to reveal its snarling hatred.

This time, Martin Bashir of MSNBC dropped his mask.

In his “Clear the Air” segment, Bashir lit into Palin straight away, referring to her as America’s “resident dunce” and characterizing her remarks as “scraping the barrel of her long-deceased mind, and using her all-time favorite analogy in an attempt to sound intelligent about the national debt…”

“One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood…In 1756, he records that a slave named Darby ‘catched eating kanes had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, sh-t in his mouth…Mrs. Palin…confirms if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, she would be the outstanding candidate.

In short, the left-wing Bashir suggested on TV that someone should forcibly defecate in Palin’s mouth.

Now, Bashir went on to apologize, but my question is this: If Rush Limbaugh had said it about Nancy Pelosi, would any amount of apology be enough?

Have not some other conservatives been chased from the airwaves after saying less and apologizing as much (or more)? Given that Bashir’s remarks were “wholly unacceptable” (as he says), why does MSNBC still have him? How low are they?

Democrats in the Obama Era: Looking for Mr. Goldstein

In my “pre-mortem” on the Virginia gubernatorial election, I noted that Terry McAuliffe would win not because he offered a positive message of reform, but because he spent millions of dollars demonizing his Republican opponent.  He secure his victory in the Old Dominion this month just as Barack Obama secured his nationally last year, by running the political equivalent of a scorched earth campaign.  Their ideas not resonating with the American people, it’s all the Democrats have.

They are always looking for someone to demonize, to scare voters into voting for them to prevent some horrible, no good, very bad right-wing extremist from seizing the reins of power and taking away their birth control or their Mommy.  Or whatever.  To hold onto power, Democrats need an Emmanuel Goldstein.  Remember what they did to Sarah Palin, later the Koch Brothers and most recently Ted Cruz?

As the reality of Obamacare sinks it, they need someone — or some industry — to distract us once again.  And once again we see that  Obama’s promise to break the Washington pattern where “everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame” was, as he might put it, “just words,” his Democrats are seeking to pin the blame somewhere else, urging the “White House to attack health insurance companies“.

No, it can’t be Obama’s policies which have caused havoc on the health insurance market when these really bad, horrible extreme corporate profiteers are out there.

Virginia ’13: the Obama/McAuliffe game plan of attack politics

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:45 pm - November 5, 2013.
Filed under: Mean-spirited leftists,Virginia Politics

In a few hours, we will likely learn that prolific Democratic fundraiser Terry McAuliffe has been elected Governor of Virginia.

And much as we can predict that result, we can alos predict the reactions.  The Democrats (and their allies in the mainstream media) will depict it as a repudiation of conservatism, a rejection of the ideas espoused by the Tea Party.  Certain Tea Party conservatives will fault the GOP establishment for not adequately supporting Republican gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli.  And some establishment Republican will contend that McAuliffe’s victory proves that Tea Party conservatives cannot win in swing states.

And that will all be wrong.  Should Cuccinelli as expected, lose, there will be a number of reasons for his defeat, with standing out.  First, he was a lousy candidate who ran a lousy campaign, never really putting forward a positive message.   And, second (somewhat related to the first), McAuliffe is a prolific fundraiser, able to raise millions of dollars to run a nasty campaign against the Republican.  In other words, he basically followed the Obama ’12 game plan.  He out-raised and outspent the Republican, going early to the airwaves to smear his opponent.

It’s all the Democrats have left–demonizing the Republicans.

And Cuccinellli made an easy target.  Sean Trende explains:

Cuccinelli’s problem in a nutshell is this: The Old Dominion would probably vote for a candidate who had sued a professor at the University of Virginia over his climate science research. It would probably vote for a candidate who referred to homosexuality as unnatural. It would probably vote for a candidate who tried to limit no-fault divorce. It would probably vote for a candidate who covered up an exposed breast on the state seal. It would probably vote for a candidate who wasn’t sure if the president was born in the United States. It would probably vote for a candidate who told colleges and universities to strip protections for gays and lesbians.

What it won’t typically do is vote for a candidate who holds all of these positions, and is unapologetic in them. (more…)

Guess Who actually calls its opponents unpatriotic and wants to jail them?

Item #366,720 in the archives of “The Left is and does, that of which it falsely accuses the Right.”

At MoveOn.org, more than 44,000 have called for the GOP leaders to be arrested for ‘seditious conspiracy’ over the recent government shutdown (and ‘default’ scare). As ZH points out, that’s more people than have signed up for Obamacare.

Needless to say, MoveOn’s petition is a FAIL on several levels: (more…)

What ARE the aims of Obama’s foreign policy?

Victor Davis Hanson published a memorable piece in the National Review last week entitled “America as Pill Bug.”  The pill bug or the roly-poly bug is one that turns itself into a ball when it feels threatened.  Hanson writes:

That roly-poly bug can serve as a fair symbol of present-day U.S. foreign policy, especially in our understandable weariness over Iraq, Afghanistan, and the scandals that are overwhelming the Obama administration.

On August 4, U.S. embassies across the Middle East simply closed on the basis of intelligence reports of planned al-Qaeda violence. The shutdown of 21 diplomatic facilities was the most extensive in recent American history.

Yet we still have over a month to go before the twelfth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, an iconic date for radical Islamists.

Such preemptive measures are no doubt sober and judicious. Yet if we shut down our entire public profile in the Middle East on the threat of terrorism, what will we do when more anti-American violence arises? Should we close more embassies for more days, or return home altogether?

Hanson makes an excellent point about the way the Obama administration’s closure of embassies is likely to be viewed in the Arab world and around the globe.  Although, as Jeff pointed out in a post last week, the administration may have ulterior motives–by trying to create a distraction–by closing the embassies in this manner, the reality is that the interpretation of the administration’s actions by our international foes is likely to proceed in a manner similar to that Hanson envisions in his article.

Hanson looks at the example of Libya and Syria to illustrate that the administration’s “lead from behind” strategy is not working, and that it appears to be counterproductive:

Instead, the terrorists are getting their second wind, as they interpret our loud magnanimity as weakness — or, more likely, simple confusion. They increasingly do not seem to fear U.S. retaliation for any planned assaults. Instead, al-Qaeda franchises expect Americans to adopt their new pill-bug mode of curling up until danger passes.

Our enemies have grounds for such cockiness. President Obama promised swift punishment for those who attacked U.S. installations in Benghazi and killed four Americans. So far the killers roam free. Rumors abound that they have been seen publicly in Libya.

Instead of blaming radical Islamist killers for that attack, the Obama reelection campaign team fobbed the assault off as the reaction to a supposedly right-wing, Islamophobic videomaker. That yarn was untrue and was greeted as politically correct appeasement in the Middle East.

All these Libyan developments took place against a backdrop of “lead from behind.” Was it wise for American officials to brag that the world’s largest military had taken a subordinate role in removing Moammar Qaddafi — in a military operation contingent on approval from the United Nations and the Arab League but not the U.S. Congress?

No one knows what to do about the mess in Syria. But when you do not know what to do, it is imprudent to periodically lay down “red lines.” Yet the administration has done just that to the Bashar al-Assad regime over the last two years.

Hanson sees the Obama administration’s foreign policy as a disastrous replay of the Carter doctrine, once again illustrating Glenn Reynolds’ frequent observation that a replay of Jimmy Carter is simply the “best-case scenario” for Obama.

While I believe Hanson is right in his characterization of the big picture and the likely consequences of Obama foreign policy, I’d differ from him in seeing Obama as being as feckless and weak as Carter.  I’d maintain that Carter’s foreign policy was guided by a number of naive precepts about the nature of the world.  At least during the years of his presidency, I’d contend that Carter “meant well” in the way the phrase is commonly used to describe a hopelessly incompetent bumbler who seems incapable of recognizing his own shortcomings.  Likewise, early in the Obama administration, Tammy Bruce started referring to Obama as Urkel, the nerdy, awkward, inept kid from the TV show “Family Matters” who had an uncanny ability to mess up almost everything he touched.  That certainly is one narrative for what Obama is doing in the world of foreign policy, but I’m not sure it is the right one.

As I contemplate Obama foreign policy, though, particularly in the Middle East, I find myself thinking more and more that although incompetence might be the simplest explanation, it might not be the best or the right one.  I see no good intentions in the administration’s domestic policy, so why should its foreign policy be exempt from charges that it is motivated more by malevolence to the United States and its role in history than by a supposed set of “liberal” ideals?

This is an administration that seems bent on alienating all of our historical allies as quickly as possible, while taking it easy on our geopolitical foes.  Obama seems to want our allies to view us as unreliable and untrustworthy while making sure our enemies view us as weak, indecisive, and either unable or unwilling to use force to protect our interests or to enforce our stated policy goals.  If there is a better explanation of the administration’s ultimate foreign policy goals, I’d sure like to know what it might be.

 

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.

Paula Deen and more, at American Thinker

I hadn’t visited there in awhile, but longtime commenter TGC put me on to this piece about Paula Deen. As many have noted, the frenzy against her seems ridiculously out-of-proportion: one occasion of saying the N-word privately 30 years ago, and her career now is to be destroyed.

The Deen witch-hunt may be an exercise in minority privilege, or/and, as Voshell’s piece suggests, it may be that Deen is several things which the Left simply hates: a Christian; a proponent of (delicious) lard, butter and sugar; a self-made woman (who doesn’t much push leftism); and more.

Once you’ve had one, you can’t stop. Some other AT pieces caught my eye:

UPDATE (from Dan): There is a little more to the Paula Deen story, suggesting that she was negligent in allowing her brother to engage in “juvenile behavior” while working at a restaurant they both owned (via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt available by subscription).

UPDATE (from Jeff): That link still doesn’t give enough to justify firing her. “A moonlight-and-magnolias romantic view of Southern culture and history”, and a “redneck clod” brother who (gasp!) needs drug treatment and watches pr0n…Probably not news to Deen’s public.

UPDATE (from Jeff): What rusty just added in the comments from blacklegalissues.com, would be more serious. Systematic abuse of minority employees, something everyone should condemn – if it’s true. First question to ask is, whether it is true. If it is, I’ll join with the Deen-bashers.

UP-UPDATE (from Dan): I saw that post yesterday from blacklegalissues.com on Facebook and had planned on looking into it as time allows. If that story bears out, then, Paula Deen’s actions are in a word, despicable and she merits the condemnation she has been receiving in the media (and more). But, my preliminary research suggests that her greatest crime appears to be a failure to supervise a mean-spirited sibling; he may be responsible for the worst excesses.

Still, this bears looking into.

UPDATE (from Jeff): Worth noting that Deen is reportedly a Democrat, and that Jimmy Carter defended her a few days ago. Since I know that Democrats can be racists and have a tradition of racism in their party, I don’t take either of those as necessarily in Deen’s favor; for now, I am really just noting them.

State Rep. Winkler: It’s Okay to say “Uncle Tom”

Last week, I posted on Barbara Walters’ and Whoopie Goldberg’s bizarre defense of Bill Maher, who had apparently called out Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome child as “retarded”. A quick refresher:

Walters speculated that Maher did not know the word [ed: "retarded"] could be hurtful…

Goldberg lamely tried to assist Walters, saying “we, society took the word ‘retarded’ and made it into something derogatory…When I was a kid, it wasn’t derogatory…”

Now MN State Rep. Ryan Winkler (D/Labor Party) has called Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom.” His defense? Guess.

[from Twitter] I did not understand “Uncle Tom” as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it…

[from Winkler's weak 'apology' statement] I was very disappointed today in the Supreme Court decision…In expressing that disappointment on twitter, I hastily used a loaded term…

I see a trend!

Now, let’s be clear. Winkler didn’t use “a loaded term”, he used a racial slur.

The Food Network has fired Paula Deen; Will HBO fire Bill Maher?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:45 am - June 23, 2013.
Filed under: Food,Liberal Hypocrisy,Mean-spirited leftists

Both used ugly epithets to describe other individuals.

Walters and Goldberg: It’s Okay to say “retarded”

In GP comments, we’ve seen the occasional mini-kerfuffle over someone’s references to the mentally handicapped: whether they were hurtful, or whether the critics (those claiming hurt) were just playing mind games, etc.

In that light, it’s interesting to note that beloved lefties Bill Maher, Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters all agree that it’s perfectly OK for a comedian to mock Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome child as “retarded”:

Maher mocked Palin’s special needs son by referring to him as “retarded” during a June 8 Las Vegas show…

Walters, who grew up with a special needs sister, said on June 17 on The View that she did not think Maher was “mean-spirited” when he referred to Palin’s son as “retarded.” Walters speculated that Maher did not know the word could be hurtful…even Walters’s in-studio audience was not buying this defense and was left silent…

Goldberg lamely tried to assist Walters, saying “we, society took the word ‘retarded’ and made it into something derogatory…When I was a kid, it wasn’t derogatory…” Video here.

I regret that I couldn’t find the exact original quote of Maher’s, but Walters and Goldberg clearly wanted to speak out in Maher’s favor: the camera flashed to an old family photo of Walters’ as she spoke, which means that Walters’ remarks were planned.

So, what’s the official standard? Is it still baaaaad to refer to anybody (whether mentally challenged or not) as “retarded” – with an exception for Republicans perhaps, or Sarah Palin’s children? On what grounds?

Lefties, please don’t try to say “Oh who cares, it’s only Bill Maher” – because it isn’t, now: it’s also Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters.

Chez Obama: The fun never stops

I know some of you are up-to-the-minute newshounds, while others are slower to the mark, like me. Once more, I’m playing catch-up on the last few days and shocked at how bad it is. Here’s my summary, for anyone else who might be “behind” like me.

On the IRS / Tea Party scandal, and mostly via HotAir:

Over in the Obama DOJ’s spy-on-the-media scandal, AG Holder is pleading a technicality to get out of a perjury charge, as I thought he might.

But hey – At least a low-level (for real) Federal worker who committed fraud, got some just desserts.

Please feel free to add more stuff that I should be noticing, in the comments!

UPDATE: McDermott, still at it, wonders aloud if yesterday’s committee witnesses might have lied. At 3:21 he says, “People can say anything, and they do, before committees. But the fact is, we don’t know [it] to be true.”

And at MSNBC, Martin Bashir plays the RAYYYSIST! card. He calls the reaction against the IRS abuses part of, in his words, “the war against the black man in the White House.”

How low can these people go? I need something uplifting, now. Here it is, via Ace and The Right Scoop: Becky Gerritson reminding us what the Tea Party is about.