This comes to us from the Democrat-Occupied city of Philadelphia; where Barack Obama received 100% of the vote in many voting precincts. Some representatives of the Democratic Urban Base were chagrined that they arrived at McDonald’s after the specified time at which the breakfast menu ceases to be served. And, of course, they responded in the manner of the Urban Democratic Base usually does when confronted with injustice. [Video after jump. Language Warning for use of the customary vernacular of the Urban Democratic Base.]
Darron Smith, a Huffington Post Editor with a Ph.D in Education (Are you impressed?) is a SJW who writes for the Puffington Host and is apparently suffering from an acute case of BRDS (Black Republican Derangement Syndrome).
His derangement has led him to conclude that Mia Love … the Haitian-American Republican female elected to Congress last week… is the very embodiment of White Privilege.
“Love’s political convictions show a strong support for values that do not necessarily represent her interests as a member in any of these oppressed groups,” Smith writes. “For example, blacks are not doing well with respect to education, economics and health outcomes, while women still trail behind in salary and significant positions of power, and conservative politics are not typically known to aid these groups in such key issues. These actualities of Mia’s existence seem to be diametrically opposed to her values that are grounded in a white, male, Christian context.”
So, what he is actually saying is that white, Conservative, Christian values actually *work* in helping minorities achieve, but that blacks should categorically reject these values and continue to live in a state of dependence because the latter is more culturally authentic.
And he prattles on…
“She appears publicly unhampered by the daily grind of white racism that affects other racial minorities within the United States…”
Probably because she doesn’t obsess over her own “victimhood” like “good minorities” are supposed to.
“Mia gets to walk through the hallowed doorways of white institutions controlled by elite, powerful men. She is allowed to pass through in her black, female body with the understanding that she must not see, speak or openly advocate for anything related to race or gender — an unholy compromise. Hence, she might look black, but her politics are red. This is one way white privilege is reproduced at the legislative level of government.”
Mia Love, the embodiment of White Privilege.
I guess the white Democrat man who lost to her must have checked his privilege and lost the receipt.
Joining in the BRDS is left-wing blog Wonkette… who declare Mia Love “crazy” for believing in things like hard work and fiscal responsibility.
Some rather clever boys have invented a nail polish that will change color in the presence of rape drugs. [I refuse to call them "date rape" drugs. Drugging someone so you can have sex with them is just plain rape. "Date rape" is apparently a term used when a woman consents to sex with a guy, and then some days or weeks later changes her mind when he doesn't call.] It’s intended to protect women against sexual assault.
Good idea, right? You would think woman would embrace this form of protection.
Women, yes. Feminists, no. In fact, feminists are even more angry than their resting state of angry over this invention.
“I don’t want to f[***]ing test my drink when I’m at the bar,” said Rebecca Nagle, one of the co-directors of an activist group called FORCE: Upsetting Rape Culture. “That’s not the world I want to live in.”
Ah. So you see, all their “rape culture” rhetoric isn’t about preventing rape, it’s about “changing the world.”
Specifically, it’s about changing the world so that men have no power or status in it. (What did you think they meant by “Smash the Patriarchy?”) “Rape Culture” is just the latest cudgel. “Do you oppose the radical agenda of the feminist left? Well, you obviously support Rape Culture!”) Imagine how the Duke lacrosse case would have worked out if the feminists had had their way?
To a militant feminist “rapist” is just a synonym for “man.”
Discuss this incendiary opinion.
And she’s as smart as she is pretty. Seriously, one word from Rush Limbaugh, and I think we’re looking at the new Sandy Fluke. (Severe Language Warning: Because you know how leftists are when they try to reason with an opponent.)
I mean, seriously, all Rush has to say is “This is the last woman on Earth who needs to worry about birth control” and Bam! Keynote speaker at the Democrat Convention. And maybe even a candidate for Governor of
When a viewpoint (leftism) goes against reason, logic and civil society – when its basic doctrine is in essence an attack on the rights of the individual – we should expect at least some of its adherents to be rude, “entitled” people in the encounters of daily life. Because the person and the viewpoint gravitate toward each other. Leftism fundamentally denies other people’s rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore, committed leftists should tend – not always, but on average and over time – tend to be unreasonable people who disrespect others.
It’s much better to laugh at these people than to feel upset by them. Consider this an open thread for posting your own favorite “ridiculous leftie encounter” stories, in the comments.
I’ll start with a very little one, that just happened. Picture a large gym, a bank of 12 large TVs shared by many exercise stations. A woman is exercising in front of TV #4. She watches #4 intently, with perhaps an occasional glance to TVs 3 or 5. TV #2 is far out of her field of vision, and clearly nothing that she’s watching. So she won’t mind if I change it, as I’m about to work in front of #2. I pick a sports channel. Oops! TV #2 had been set to MSNBC, and she’s a Ridiculous Leftie who must dictate everything that happens. She stops exercising and strides to the far wall just to change #2 back to MSNBC, glaring at me with vicious hostility. And then – get this – she *still* doesn’t watch it. (Probably since she would have had to strain her neck, to keep it up for long; or do even liberals dislike MSNBC?)
The story ended OK for me (I did speak with her and have reason prevail) but that’s enough. Tell yours!
Erin Ching, a student at Swarthmore College (Tuition: $60K per year) was quoted in her student newspaper with the following:
‘What really bothered me is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.’
And Rutgers University answers: “Right on, Sister.”
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice abruptly withdrew Saturday from speaking at Rutgers University’s commencement address amid protests at her selection from faculty and students and denouncements of her as a “war criminal.”
The largest student newspaper, The Daily Targum, also urged the school to reconsider in a strong editorial that said that none of their commencement speakers should have “questionable politics.”
Other Rutgers campuses followed suit in calling for the forced withdrawal of Rice and students and faculty at the main campus staged a sit-in protest on Monday. During that protest, some participants held up signs that read “No honors for war criminals,”War criminals out” and “RU 4 Humanity?”
One notes that the Little Fascists of Rutgers had no protest at all when another Iraq War supporter, Hillary Rodham Clinton, spoke on campus. Curious, isn’t it?
While we on the Right concern ourselves with little things like unsustainable debt and the erosion of the Rule of Law; the Left frets about this stuff: McDonald’s Gave Me the “Girl’s Toy” With My Happy Meal. So I Went to the CEO.
(Or, Safe Link to Weasel Zippers.)
In a series of 30 visits, we sent boys and girls, ages 7-11, into 15 McDonald’s stores to independently order a Happy Meal at the counter. We found that 92.9 percent of the time, the store, without asking, simply gave each child the toy that McDonald’s had designated for that child’s gender—a Justice fashion toy for girls and a Power Rangers toy for boys
McDonald’s is estimated to sell more than 1 billion Happy Meals each year. When it poses this question—“Do you want a boy’s toy or a girl’s toy?”—McDonald’s pressures innumerable children to conform to gender stereotypes.
Reading that temper tantrum over stuff-no-rational-person-could-possibly-care-about is causing me to do some gender stereotyping right now.
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.
1. Nadal Hasan murders 14 people at Fort Hood While screaming “Allahu Akbar!” Not a terrorist.
2. American citizens come together and, without firing a shot, protect a Nevada rancher from Federal Agencies who assaulted his family, killed his cattle, and destroyed his equipment. These are the people Democrats consider “domestic terrorists.”
I am reasonably confident King George III considered George Washington, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson to be “domestic terrorists,” too.
Basically, left-wing Democrats want an obtrusive Big Government, to pay for their lives/mistakes and to punish anyone whom they have ever envied. Someone who stands for traditional citizens’ liberties under a smaller, less oppressive Federal government will simply terrify them. And is, therefore and to them, “a terrorist”.
Zero Hedge remembers how the Great Housing Bubble of 2003-7 was something Paul Krugman had called for:
Before you say “But that was in 2002!”, consider more recent examples of Krugman stupidity, like his calling in 2012 for the government to boost (supposedly) the economy by faking an invasion of space aliens. The Krugtron quote from Time’s account:
“If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack, and we needed a massive build-up to counter the space alien threat, and inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months,” Krugman says…
A second instance, from PuffHo’s account:
“So if we could get something that could cause the government to say, ‘Oh, never mind those budget things; let’s just spend and do a bunch of stuff.’ So my fake threat from space aliens is the other route,” Krugman said before a laughing crowd. “I’ve been proposing that.”
So he said it more than once; only half-joking at best. The man loves his malinvestment.*
(*Borrow-and-spend that creates market bubbles, overbuilding, leaf-raking, wars or other activity that is economically inefficient, or useless, or even destructive.)
Related: It struck me that one way you can tell a left-liberal is: government spending always sounds like a good idea, to them. Should government spend, to stimulate the economy? Check. Spend more on education, so people will (supposedly) be more educated? You betcha. It never occurs to the left-liberal that government just might be incompetent at most things. So that the proposed spending would do nothing at all – or would even make things worse, as it only subsidizes incompetence. For example: Subsidizing an incompetent system of educators. The possibility just doesn’t cross a liberal’s mind.
On Wednesday, V noted how President Obama set aside his own Obamacare law and decreed a delay to the “individual mandate”. (The mandate that he previously told the Supreme Court was an absolutely essential part of Obamacare.)
Thursday’s example was Obama’s plan to decree overtime pay for some 10 million who had willingly been working without it, because they are salaried employees.
It’s not a good thing. First of all, anytime the government mandates pay increases, it costs real people their jobs. While some people might get more pay, others’ pay goes to part-time, or to zero. When Obama proposed his minimum wage hike last month, even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) agreed that it would cost 500,000 jobs.
But the deeper problem is that, in Barack H. Obama, we have a President who increasingly abandons constitutional, legislative and democratic processes. Throughout his administration, in issue after issue, he has declared that the rules are now different because he says so. Whether it’s ripping off honest GM bondholders, Fast and Furious, hiding information about corrupt federal prosecutors, Obamacare or countless other issues, you never can tell when this President will suddenly decide on different rules.
With this overtime change, there is serious debate about whether the President has the legal authority to do it. Some say he doesn’t; some say he does. But that means his move is dubious. And however that might be – and I say, even worse – Obama’s move makes the government interfere, once again, in arrangements that freely consenting adults had agreed on. (Liberals may want government out of the bedroom, but boy, do they want government in everything, everyone and everywhere else.)
This is one more, little thread in the tapestry of America’s decline: we have become a nation ruled by “men, not laws.” And if you think that arbitrary government doesn’t make for an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that stifles the economy, think again.
UPDATE: Allahpundit has video, as he puts it, of Obama “in 2008 promising to roll back Bush’s executive overreach because he was a law professor and knew the Constitution ‘n stuff.”.
Rep. Trey Gowdy gives an appropriate response.
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.
Thomas the Tank Engine has been blamed for a lack of women train drivers by the shadow transport secretary.
Mary Creagh said it was a ‘national scandal’ that there were so few women drivers on the railways, but was ridiculed for saying that the popular children’s story was partly to blame.
She said all the main characters in the original books – published in the 1940s – are male, and the only female characters are an ‘annoyance, a nuisance and in some cases a danger’ to the railway.
According to her Wikipedia page, Mary Creagh is a typical leftist whackjob whose previous achievements include campaigns against carbonated beverages and hot water, and who has been described as “lacking in balanced judgment.”
Needless to say, she will never have to worry about being added to GLAAD’s blacklist.
PajamaBoy – a.k.a. Ethan Krupp, a.k.a the result of drunken, unprotected fling between Rachel Maddow and Saturday Night Live’s Pat … Metrosexual, 1%er, archetypal Democrat male … claims that he only ever lost one argument… to a gay conservative.
“I sat in a pizza joint, chomping on meat-heavy pizza and slamming whisky sours with gay guys on Pride Parade day in Columbus, Ohio; My gay roommate and friends loved to ironically ‘bro-out.’ I love gays because they are all liberal fucks too,” Krupp wrote.
“Someone mentions politics and everyone perks up, distracted from the whisky. Equal rights get first dibs, followed by education and then sassy comments about closeted Republicans. Feeding off the energy, I introduce abortion: ‘Old men controlling women’s bodies.’ The guy who’s stayed silent, Chip, joins the conversation,” Krupp wrote.
Krupp claimed that he at first told Chip, a conservative on the abortion issue, that his “ignorant views come from his biological disregard toward pregnancy,” prompting Chip to explain a procedure by which fetuses can be removed from the womb, grown elsewhere, then given up for adoption.
“The whisky yelled at Chip for being a terrible gay man. Chip smirked, knowing full well he won the argument,” Krupp wrote.
Everything I read about PajamaBoy adds to the picture of a smug, leftist, phenomenal d-bag; the heart and soul of the modern Democrat party. I can believe he’s never lost an argument, the same way Keith Olbermann, Al Gore, and Rachel Maddow “never lose” arguments, by simply not debating conservatives.
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!
Sometimes you’ll be scanning headlines at your favorite locations, and a common element will jump out at you. Consider:
- In the SF Bay area, President Obama’s supporters call for him to rule by unilateral decree.
- In Colorado, gun-control supporters get thuggish on gun-rights supporters.
- At Bowie State in MD, college administrators harass a black student for his criticism of Obamacare.
- In Honduras, leftists apparently lost the election – and won’t concede.
The common element is, of course, the Left’s penchant for dictatorship and thuggery.
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?
Enough lefties understand that President Obama is drowning in scandals of his own creation that comedy shows can begin to talk about it:
But other lefties remain mired in denial:
Oprah…[said] “There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American. There’s no question about that and it’s the kind of thing nobody ever says but everybody’s thinking it.”
Oprah ignores the fact that Americans elected Obama twice; the fact that everybody on the Left has been ‘saying it’ for years; and the fact that Democrats, to this day, show the greatest of disrespect to President Bush. Never mind the question of whether Obama has been dragging down the office with his unpresidential behavior.
As Obamacare inflicts serious rate hikes on most consumers, quotes like the following are making the rounds:
In his story, reporter Chad Terhune also quoted a letter sent to a California insurance company executive. “I was all for Obamacare,” wrote a young woman complaining about a 50 percent rate hike related to the health care law, “until I found out I was paying for it.”
At first glance, one may admire the speaker’s sharp tongue. She gets to the heart of the matter.
But what is she really saying? That she wants to be generous with Other People’s Money. Not hers! For her, the key moral and emotional transaction in politics is to make herself feel good by having government take from others; by literally making others pay.
She also reveals that she has no idea how life works. She seriously thought that health care could be made “free” (i.e., sick people heavily subsidized, in inefficient exchanges that the government forces people to be in against their will) without herself having to pay the price for it, sooner or later, in some form.
I propose a politics where people are free to choose, and to keep most of what they earn.
- If they choose to spend their lives productively, they keep most of the results (and can give to others, if they wish to).
- If they choose not to spend their lives productively, then they bear most the consequences (although they will probably still find help from family, friends, and pro bono doctors/clinics, not limited to emergency rooms).
- Life’s transactions are voluntary – requiring both sides to feel they’re gaining in some way, or else the transaction doesn’t happen – and, as such, tend to get cheaper and more efficient over time.
Everyone wins. Except, perhaps, the short-sighted and the vengeful.
In the last two weeks, Huffington Post (to its credit) has published a 3-part takedown of the noxious New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, by the fetching economic historian, Niall Ferguson:
It’s long, but I found it a pleasure on several levels. Ferguson is a civil human being (see the video at the bottom of part I) and always an engaging and thoughtful writer. And Krugman merits the takedown, as a writer who habitually over-states his own rightness and denies his past mistakes (such as his 2002 call in favor of having a housing bubble). Krugman recently called himself “Krugtron the Invincible”, which Ferguson adopted as the title for his series.
For fun, here’s Dilbert from June 3: