You are here: Home / Archives for liberal hypocrisy

Citizens advancing on Obamamania media positions on the American front

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
May 3, 2013  •1 Comment
Tagged With: , , ,

I get a palpable sense that it’s not just me and the usual Republican or conservative or at least right-thinking punditry and luminaries like the esteemed Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, whose column this week is entitled “Obama: The fall”, and author and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, who are sensing a change in tide. Noonan Tweeted yesterday,

In their most recent columns, they both point to Obama’s fall from grace and any hope of a positive legacy. More on that in a bit.

There’s so much more gong on out there. And it’s not just the fortunes of President Obama (falling) about which people  –  even uncommitted or non-partisan people  –  are taking notice of, and fighting with words and sundry postings in Twitter accounts or blogs. It’s the Obamamania media, a large part Obama-goofball-001of which is stuck on stupid and refuses to acknowledge they are getting caught in their own left-wing, progressive-politics-advocating biases and lies, which people are fighting back against. And that will fertilize the liberal mainstream media’s already seeded downfall.

Good, I say.

I find more and more citizens and an increasing number of well-equipped citizen journalists are looking askance at Team Progressive and their tactics  –  the deception, the division into classes or BS percentages (“we are the __%!”) , the projection, the obfuscation, what the media chooses to report and how, and what they choose NOT to report and why. The outright lies told by President Obama, and his pathological habit of engaging in some of the most malodorous, partisan politics and destructive politics of division: it’s starting to grate on the American people.

It’s particularly this odious partisanship  –  this seemingly endless attack-oriented campaigning  –  where he engages in hateful partisanship and then, sometimes the very next day, risibly blames and bashes his opponents of acting exactly as he, and only he, has been. He’s supposed to be the unifier. He’s the opposite. He’s supposed to fix just these problems. He’s making things worse. On purpose!

Both he and more generally the Democrats, liberals, mainstream media, academia, the trusty old Obama-loving liberal Hollywood, and the many professional left-wing advocacy industry lobbyists like the race-baiting industry and the feminist industry and the abortion industry, are more and more getting caught and called-out for their corruption of lies, hypocrisy, political advocacy, coverups, and whitewashes. Caught and called-out by plain folks.

And I love it. We are the 53%!

Here’s an excellent caught-on-tape video example of a citizen who happened to be there while another one of those useful idiot news reporters (from NBC) is caught red-handed purposely (or at the very least, through her willful ignorance) failing to report the whole story  –  which we should view in juxtaposition to how she or any of the mainstream media might have reported on a nice, peaceful tea party rally. This happened at the recent May Day mayhem in Manhattan, which almost nobody in the media (except possibly in Seattle where there were also outrageous anti-capitalist and violent left-wing riots) bothered to cover  — on account of it being another left-wing riot of left-wing mobs, instead of it being conservatives (which, if it were, they’d be sure to point out with a six-part series of news reports).

Let’s watch: (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/03/wnbc-reporter-ida-siegal-doesnt-know-what-the-hammer-sickle-symbol-represents/)

These reporters  –  these investigating journalism sleuths –  are the same people who went to the ends of the earth to find the one “extreme” placard at any tea party rally that said anything other than “good afternoon, cuppa tea?” And when they couldn’t find one, they just made it up. This recent left-wing-caused May Day violence is something like you never, ever, see conservatives or the tea party engaging in. No, not at those always peaceful and generally upbeat and mostly family-oriented tea party rallies, no, not ever.

Other recent examples of the left’s glib treachery abound  –  and as usual, it’s the right-thinking blogosphere, and Fox News Channel, and very few others (CNN’s Jake Tapper and the liberal Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers being two of the few notable exceptions) who are pointing out the corruption.

The Kermit Gosnell abortion/murder trial and its lack of coverage is a news story which is only slowly becoming a story  –  ironically one now dominated more by mea culpas from the mainstream media for its failure to report on it  –  and only after being embarrassed by conservative Tweeters and bloggers and of course Fox News Channel, The Daily Caller, Weekly Standard, Twitchy.com, and similar truth-tellers, including the indispensable DrudgeReport.com.

The coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings, in which the media tried its very hardest to be just like the Obama administration vis-à-vis Benghazi (you’ll remember they tried to lie to you and blame it on some benign YouTube video), and particularly at the left-wing joke of a news network MSNBC which tried as best they could to once again blame “right-wingers,” made for pure comedy gold. But it provided another excellent example of another phony narrative  –  which only a few years ago, the media might have gotten away with. Instead of facing up to the more obvious notion of the bombing being a terrorist attack and the result of radical Islamic jihadists, they were forced, rather quickly, and more quickly than they would have liked by this new and growing army of newly vigilant citizens, to actually acknowledge the truth. You know, sort of like what journalists are supposed to do.

The truth helps ruin the phony Obama narrative that Islamic terrorism and Islamic jihadism are but a thing of the past, what with Obama’s brave slaying of Usama bin Laden, and his doctrine of Islamist appeasement, and his downgrading of American power, and of course that “hope and change” thing.

Now, we have an excellent example of the continued unraveling of potentially the biggest of them all  –  the Obama (aided and abetted by his adoring, corrupt media) coverup of what we  –  and they, as we now know  –  knew was always a terrorist attack  –  possibly al Qaeda-linked  –  on the embassy in Benghazi Libya. The excellent reporting by Stephen Hayes at the conservative Weekly Standard about newly discovered proof of an Obama administration coverup, makes this a must-read for anyone interested in history, and truth, and honesty in government, instead of lies and Obama-style power politics. I and most of the right-thinking blogosphere have been shouting “coverup” since just after that horrific Benghazi attack happened and the Obamatons started blaming a YouTube video in place of the truth, and it’s finally getting more attention now. But again, only because the severity of the facts are being exposed, and the fact that the facts simply can’t be willfully ignored any more, because of the likes of “us”.

Back to those columns by Krauthammer, and Noonan: They both write this week of the failure of Obama. So much more can be said, and so much more will be. But I already know I will always look back on these years not just as the predictable years of the failed Barack Obama regime, but more specifically at how the mainstream media  –  and make no mistake it’s his media  –  was finally so caught up in its lies and perfidy and its left-wing or so-called “progressive” advocacy, that the regular people of the world started catching up  –  and ending it.

It’s not just Obama who failed, as Krauthammer and Noonan have written  –  it’s the media. And the people are winning.

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
May 3, 2013 •1 Comment
Tagged With: , , ,
Filed Under: Bold Blog
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

“5…4…3…2…1…BANG, you’re dead!”

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
April 5, 2013  •1 Comment
Tagged With: , ,

Cross-posted at ProudToBeCanadian.ca and Joel Johannesen.com.    

 

Something about gardening and getting right down there in the dirt with your bare hands makes clear things that might otherwise be convoluted. For example, this happened:

“Five… four… three… two… one… BANG, you’re DEAD!”

toy_gunThat’s what the kid yelled.

And that’s what me and my wife heard last weekend while we were innocently working away out in the garden amongst our tulips and daffodils in our quiet little white picket fence suburban neighborhood. (Our house literally has a white picket fence, so there.)

The pseudo-auspicious warning — or play-by play commentary — wasn’t directed at us, luckily, and I’m happy to report we’re still alive — but rather at a group of other kids and/or adults a couple of doors down. And it was just a bunch of kids playing on the street, like kids do. Playing “guns.”

I wouldn’t have given it another thought, but I love to jump down liberals’ throats and expose their sundry sophistry and logical fallacies whenever I can.

In the context of today’s bombastic and always idiotic gun control rhetoric coming out of liberal/left America as led by the sophists-in-chief Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, foot-in-mouth numbskull VP Joe Biden, et al, post-Newtown shooting; and out of the even more idiotic (at least on this subject) Smith_and_Wesson_640_hand_gunCanada’s liberal left, my mental meandering has the added value of being at least a little apropos of something, unlike 90% of liberal-leftist blather on any pet subject.

Here’s what stuck: that kid didn’t learn what today’s liberals would deride as horrible, red-neck, right-wing, conservative whackjob-style, pro-gun rhetoric from the NRA, as liberal leftists the continent over would love you to falsely believe. No, rather, he almost certainly learned it from today’s liberals in Hollywood. Yes, liberals from the blathering liberal-left anti-gun, anti-conservative, anti-NRA set in notoriously liberal-left, Obama-supporting Hollywood (or “Hollywood North” — Vancouver, or Toronto — which is the exact same class of weapon). He got it from a TV show, movie, rap or hip-hop “song”, or video game from liberals in what we all know to be that hypocritical-on-nearly-every-issue, holier-than-thou, liberal Hollywood and their liberal-left media industrial complex.

The NRA doesn’t teach “5… 4… 3… 2… 1… BANG, you’re DEAD!” or anything like that kind of theatrics. They don’t advocate for alarming, penultimate warnings to the end of innocent life at the hand of kids role-playing an awesome man with cool, fearsome weaponry. Hollywood does. Liberals do.

So own it, Hollywood. And moreover liberals. Own what you created. Hey maybe liberals should be registered, or banned, since they cause gun violence! And by the way, actually, I’m kidding. I say that because some liberals are so dumb they may take me seriously and actually volunteer, much as they do with regard to paying higher taxes.

A couple more notes on this subject: It brought back a “discussion” around the Christmas turkey dinner table (I’m itching to claim the turkey was picked-off by a well-placed shotgun blast, but it probably wasn’t) with family (where I’m surrounded by liberals and outright socialists — yeah, real fun). An in-law, truly aghast at the audacity of the NRA to defend gun ownership after that Newtown elementary school shooting, said (in that liberal way — wherein they speak as though it is assumed everyone in the room agrees with them, which in this case nearly everyone did) that the NRA keeps making these totally “idiotic” claims about guns being a “constitutional right” (said using excessive eye-rolls and air quotes), “and junk like that” — or at least words to that dismissive, pejorative effect.

I quietly reminded her that it was, in fact, a constitutional right, in America, for citizens to have guns. “Well they should change their constitution then!” she shot back.

Of course my brain comes fully loaded with a magazine full of real science and information and actual facts and objective truths rather than knee-jerk emotional responses based on sophomoric rhetoric, so I quietly reminded her that they had, in fact, changed their constitution. “It’s called The Second Amendment,” I said. If I’d had a mic I’d have dropped it.

This is where liberals usually take to calling me an idiot, or something I find even funnier (Hitler, a Nazi, racist, homophobe, a swear-word, or whatever), then do an adroit about-face and storm off, but alas, it was at the very start of Christmas dinner and we were too crammed in there for her to get up and storm off. Suffice it to say she won’t be sending me any Christmas cards (or even “festivus” or “happy tree” or “highly regarded seasonal values and greetings!” cards) in the future.

gun-Beretta_92FS_S_maxi250-202x140Another point, which I mention for my Canadian brethren: It’s actually the right of Canadians, too, to defend themselves, regardless of what liberals tell you to the contrary. I’ve been a member of the NRA for years. (And by the way, I’m not a hunter. Or a “Hitler.”) This past month or so, I also joined the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, and donated to the National Firearms Association.

I’m loath to remind my readers (oh who am I kidding, I love it) that when I took the Canadian Firearms courses and got my license to acquire and possess guns in Canada (including semi-automatic rifles and handguns), I nearly failed one of the tests when I was told to unload the magazine from the Beretta semi-auto I was being tested on (exactly as pictured, above right), and I accidentally turned the muzzle downward, toward my left toe, instead of keeping it pointed down range. While I got nearly perfect and perfect scores on the written tests and the other practicals, I had to go back and take the handgun practical test over again. My wife passed all the tests with flying colors. Shut up.

So I’m not perfect, but at least I know all about guns, and what, for example, a “military-style” “assault” weapon is, unlike another in-law who blasted off several rounds of liberal-left talking points total BS last Christmas about the supposed need to ban those guns… but don’t get me started again.

Which is why everyone should work in the garden.



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
April 5, 2013 •1 Comment
Tagged With: , ,
Filed Under: Bold Blog
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

Snippets from the Joelosphere

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
March 7, 2013  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Lines I liked this morning:
First up: from Ann Coulter’s latest column. She’s continuing to try to edify liberals (good luck with that, Ann) on the stupidity at the root of their pathological gun control fetish, the construct of which has them purposely shielding their gaze from some of the actual roots of the actual problem.

… Of course, the vast majority of mentally disturbed individuals are not dangerous. But looking at it from the other end, more than half of all mass murder is committed by the mentally ill. Gun ownership doesn’t lead to random murder rampages; mental illness does.

And the good news for Republicans is: Democrats will only pretend to support keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous psychotics, while working frantically to gut and undermine such measures. Liberals fear “stigmatizing” the mentally ill more than they fear another mass murder.

Instead of proposing serious reforms, the Democrats play politics by demonizing responsible gun owners and the Republicans who defend them.

The Democrats’ gun proposals are like the joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the lamplight:

“Is that where you dropped them?”

“No, but the light’s better here.” …

I might add that in my opinion, the pose struck by liberals on the gun control issue reminds me of a drunkard pissing in the wind, and then lying and blaming the direction of the wind on “man-made global warming” and, of course, as if I had to tell you, Bush. And yes, my over-the-top mixed metaphor is happily acknowledged.

Another favorite quote comes from the equally inimitable James Taranto, and his Best of the Web column at the Wall Street Journal, today. Part of it concerns the death of the evil socialist dictator Hugo Chavez:

The socialist Venezuelan demagogue died of cancer yesterday, as London’s left-wing Guardian notes in an over-the-top obit:

No one imagined it would end like this. A ravaged body, a hospital bed, a shroud of silence, invisible. Hugo Chávez’s life blazed drama, a command performance, and friend and foe alike always envisaged an operatic finale.

He would rule for decades, transform Venezuela and Latin America, and bid supporters farewell from the palace balcony, an old man, his work complete. Or, a parallel fantasy: he would tumble from power, disgraced and defeated by the wreckage of revolution, ending his days a hounded pariah.

Oh give us a break. Chavez announced he had cancer almost two years ago, and it had been clear for months that his condition was terminal. It would take either an overactive imagination or none at all to fail to imagine “it would end like this.” Still, Chavez’s expected death calls to mind Hilaire Belloc’s “Epitaph on the Politician Himself”:

Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politician’s corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged,
I wept: for I had longed to see him hanged.

I don’t even appreciate poetry, but that struck a bell with me. I appreciate the facts of life, and that there is good, and there is evil, and Hugo Chavez was firmly, if not also arrogantly and glibly, on the side of evil. Yes, that is a little ironic too, given his speech at the U.N., the supposed bastion of diplomacy, where he sneered that he could smell sulfur in the wake of President Bush speaking there just before him. Bush actually being squarely on the side of good. So I, too, longed to see Chavez hanged, if metaphorically.

Obama_and_his_staged_ploy

Obama staged an apocalyptic freak-out show for weeks, using first-responders and others as props, to scare Americans into siding with him and hating Republicans.

Finally, it’s not so much a quotable quote, but an observation by Michael Reagan this morning, which gave me some hope for the salvation of what I’ve come to worry is a nation full of what Rush Limbaugh calls the “low-information voter.” (By the way, that term is, in its own right, a spot-on term worthy of serious consideration among conservatives hoping to win elections; i.e. inform them, preferably with Reagan’s father’s own method: speaking in “bold colors!”).

Michael Reagan is talking about a vote during this week’s Los Angeles mayoral primaries, which because they are pretty much going bankrupt after years of progressive party rule, included a proposition to raise city sales taxes (and adhering to one of the real modi operandi of the political progressive liberal left, it would of course also raise government spending). See if this image doesn’t look familiar:

Proposition A was backed by the police chief and outgoing Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who used police academy recruits as props and warned of losing 500 city cops if the sales tax hike was defeated.

Yes…

Just as Obama tried to scare the public into believing that the sequester would hurt our national security, the local pols here tried to scare voters into thinking public safety would be endangered without Proposition A.

And yet… perhaps hoist with their own petard (the petard being lie-bomb Obama), the lying politicians in the left coast’s center of the left-wing universe lost the vote.

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
March 7, 2013 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , , , , ,
Filed Under: Bold Blog
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

Michelle Malkin mocks Michelle Obama; liberals aghast at humor at their expense.

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
February 26, 2013  •1 Comment
Tagged With: , ,

Apparently political humor is only funny  –  or even allowed  — when it’s crafted by the likes (or should I say hates) of the extreme leftist and foul-mouthed Bill Maher, or by the left’s favorite anti-conservative, Jon Stewart. Or absolutely any human being as long as the right is the target of the supposed humor.

This Michelle Malkin video, described as “A parody response video to Jimmy Fallon and Michelle Obama’s ‘Evolution of Mom Dancing’,” and which was immediately added to my Favorites list at my BoldColors.net YouTube Channel, is going viral today. Easiest prediction I could have made today: it has the progressives in a snotty little tizzy, because it’s funny and it mocks them and their sacred Obamas. Apparently, you see, it’s been deemed not funny by experts from the know-it-all left. Once again, you see, the science is settled. And if I understand correctly from all the negative tweets from the liberals in my Twitter feed and others, it’s even unfair and un-American to make fun of Michelle Obama. I’m pretty sure it will be “racist” too (like I had to tell you).

My favorite part is the “Driving the Prius” dance. Well that and how liberals are so thin-skinned, lacking in any sense of humor, and are such hypocrites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1iRdUwnFWo&list=PL311A02DF3E502F75&index=1

 

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
February 26, 2013 •1 Comment
Tagged With: , ,
Filed Under: Bold Blog
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

Kids Write Obama on Abortion

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
January 22, 2013  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,

I’m getting sick and tired of the Obama administration using children selectively in order to help the president advocate his public policy positions. As I sat and watched his recent press conference, I finally understood his opposition to the Iraq War. It seems he and the late President Hussein are kindred spirits who share more than just a name. They share a sick penchant for using children as human shields in the middle of war. And make no mistake about it; America is currently at war with itself on many different fronts. As I sat and watched Obama surrounded by little human political shields, three things struck me as being especially hypocritical:

1. Just a few years ago, the president would have supported murdering all of those children by dismemberment.

2. The president would have classified their dismemberment as “health care” within a comprehensive reform package necessary to preserve the well-being of children, and finally

3. All the children at the press conference were protected from being murdered at that particular moment by government agents carrying concealed weapons.

But it got worse as the day went on. ABC News and other outlets began circulating letters written to Obama by children wishing to weigh in on current public policy debates. That’s normal, of course. Children always weigh in on public policy debates without being prodded by liberal parents who never left childhood themselves. And everyone knows it makes sense to base public policy decisions on the recommendations of children.

What people do not realize is that the practice of children voluntarily writing the White House is so common that the Obama Administration is having difficulty keeping the content of some of these letters from the press. Fortunately, I have a mole in the White House who has sent me some of these previously hidden letters – all of which were mailed by school children to Obama. In fairness, we are forbidden to assume that any of the following letters were written under duress from right wing parents or school teachers:

Grant writes “Mr. Obama, there should be some changes in the law with abortions. It’s a free country, but I recommend there needs be [sic] a limit with killing babies. Please don’t let people own abortion clinics or give money to powerful lobbies like Planned Parenthood. I think there should be a good reason to get an abortion. There should be a limit about [sic] how many abortions a person can have.”

Julia writes “Even though I am not scared for my own safety, I am scared for others who are not yet born. My opinion is it should be very hard for people to be aborted in the womb. I beg you to work very hard to make killing children not allowed, not just for me, but for the whole United States.”

Taejah writes “I am very sad about the children who lost their lives since 1973. So I thought I would write to you to STOP feminist violence. Thank you, Mr. President.”

Right now, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the New York Times should be up in arms about the fact that these letters are just now hitting the press. They should also be outraged that it took a leak for them to get there. Clearly, the press has a right to know what all children – liberal or conservative – are thinking about important matters of public policy. With the help of the media, we could have curtailed the right to abortions – despite the fact that they are clearly written into the language of the constitution (right next to the right to homosexual sodomy and free birth control). After all, the president himself said “if there’s even one step that we can take to save another child then surely we have an obligation to try.”

If only the president valued the political opinions of all children equally. Then he might realize that every child has an equal right to life. And so many children could be saved.

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
January 22, 2013 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,
Filed Under: Columnists, Mike Adams
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

The Presidential Race is Over, Cue the Conspiracy Theories

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Theo Caldwell
October 31, 2012  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , ,

This race is over, but the conspiracy theories are about to begin. And, boy howdy, are things going to get ugly.

To wit, Mitt Romney will defeat Barack Obama for the presidency on November 6, after which there will be hysterical blowback. The election result is quantifiable, with Romney consistently leading in national tracking polls, finding a level at or above 50 percent in many, and closing the necessary gaps in swing states and among demographic groups. Greater evidence can be found, however, in Obama’s sour demeanor and the conduct of his campaign. What a mess.

Opinion-peddlers have noted that the Obama re-election effort has taken on the hallmarks of failed campaigns from previous cycles: scattershot messaging, flailing narratives, ad hominem attacks and joyless mockery. This was never going to work, and Democratic political veterans like Bob Beckel and Doug Schoen will likely admit as much once the polls are closed. Incurables like Alan Colmes and Maureen Dowd, however, will never let it go. And this latter stance – that Obama’s defeat is somehow illegitimate – will take hold in many, noisy quarters.

It is not only the politically interested who will adopt this view – even casual observers will be sucked in. We often see leftist orthodoxy morph into popular convention. This is because, while there are some smart people on the left, it requires almost no thinking to be a liberal. Simply absorb the political sentiments you hear in almost any Hollywood film, or on most any television program or newscast and, presto, you’re in. Repeat these nostrums at school or work and you will be rewarded. Augmented by the emotional satisfaction of the left’s perpetual righteous indignation, this dynamic becomes self-fulfilling and very cozy.

And it’s that snorting indignation warming up in the bullpen that augurs an ugly autumn. After Obama loses, every bellyacher you know will take to the world wide interwebs to blame the Bilderbergs, Bain Capital, Big Oil, Brigham Young – basically anyone but Obama himself. It will be insufferable. Theories will be all over the map, mutually contradicting one another, but advanced with furious certainty. Again, we see this often. The showerless outrage of the left knows no bounds, and it is impervious to reason.

Whether Romney’s margin of victory is large or small will matter little to the tone of these plaints. Certainly, a resounding win will foreclose the Democrats’ propensity to steal close elections through after-the-fact chicanery (presented as Exhibit A: Al Franken is a senator) but, for Obama apologists, a blowout will simply evince a wider conspiracy, and darker depths of American ignorance, bigotry and credulousness.

This sort of heads-we-win-tails-you’re-a-cheating-moron default is endemic to Democrats and emblematic of the international left. The last time a fabulously wealthy politician from Massachusetts ran for president, he lost fair and square. But John Kerry had the good fortune to be a Democrat (and had the further good fortune to marry into money – twice – making him several times wealthier than the self-made Romney), which is why California Sen. Barbara Boxer, among others, made it her business to overturn the electoral results in Ohio owing to voting “irregularities” she knew, just knew, had occurred. Britain’s Daily Mirror, meanwhile, responded to George W. Bush’s 2004 defeat of Kerry by asking, “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?”

It will be far worse this time, however. Accusations of racism have been hurled at Obama’s opponents since he first announced his candidacy. While the effectiveness of this tactic has seen diminishing returns, its cynicism and ubiquity remain nonpareil in American politics, and will reach new heights after the election. But if, as Dr. King dreamed, we should be judged on the content of our character rather than the color of our skin, then any such assessment can be either good or bad.

The simple truth is that Barack Obama has been a lousy president – worse than Jimmy Carter, and the most antipathetic to the US Constitution since the despicable Woodrow Wilson (incidentally, one wonders how Wilson, an actual racist, would react to seeing his Progressive Era rhubarb revived by America’s first black president – food for thought).

Obama deserves to lose, and he will. By turning him out of office, the American people will be affording him the same treatment owed any president, regardless of color or creed, whose term has been a failure. In this way, Barack Obama’s defeat will provide greater evidence of America’s racial progress than his election ever did.



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Theo Caldwell
October 31, 2012 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , ,
Filed Under: Columnists, Theo Caldwell
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

“They gonna put you y’all back in chains” — the ever eloquent Obama’s VP Biden

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
August 14, 2012  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , , ,

But don’t worry, it’s not a “gaffe.” That word is reserved for the other side.

Can you just imagine if, instead of the gaffe and idiocy-prone imp Joe Biden saying this,  it was Paul Ryan, GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s VP pick, saying this about Barack Obama? Can you just imagine the clarion call from the ever so civil Left and all of its sycophantic media division for Mitt Romney’s and Paul Ryan’s very public apology and, notwithstanding that, the media’s subsequent ongoing slaughtering of them anyway?

Sure you can! We all can! Yes we can!

When asked about it in another fluffy media interview, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter says the campaign has “no problem” with Vice President Joe Biden’s comment about putting people back in chains. But first, Cutter tried to “put it in context.” See, suddenly “context” matters to them. So since suddenly, in trying to explain and defend those words, context matters, let’s talk about the context. The context doesn’t matter! Because if Paul Ryan had said this instead of Joe Biden, context once again simply wouldn’t matter! But thanks for playing!

This comes on the same day I received one of my four-or-five-times-daily desperate emails from barackobama.com  –  this one asking, in very eloquent and civil and respectful “unity” and “post-partisan,” “respectful,” and new-style” and “post-modern” and “intelligent” Obama-style language:  “You might be wondering why the hell Romney picked this guy.”

Of course, “this guy” is the very respectable Congressman Paul Ryan, uh, “the hell.”

And it doesn’t take eagle eyes to see where the rest of that emailed missive was going: more lies. Clearly they’ve decided to stick with an outright lie about Romney/Ryan planning to “dismantle Medicare,” which I can tell is a lie inasmuch as the truth is exactly the opposite, and they know it.

This Obama regime is the most deceptive, dishonest, vulgar, divisive regime I’ve ever known. The People need to put Obama and thems’all back in chains. Oh sorry  –  was that “homophobic?”



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
August 14, 2012 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , , ,
Filed Under: Bold Blog
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

The Salem Sandwich Trials

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
July 31, 2012  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , , , , ,

My name is Mike Adams. I’m honored to have been elected mayor of Salem, Massachusetts at this seminal point in history as we struggle to eradicate intolerance and prejudice towards gays, bisexuals, lesbians, and transgendered persons. Members of the GBLT community (hereafter: Giblets) are in need of our support. But they cannot go it alone. They need the support of the government as well.

I have been inspired by the recent efforts of the Mayor of Boston who has the courage to say that intolerance will not be tolerated in Massachusetts. He is a prescient man. He knows that people who hold disapproving views of sexual minorities will eventually begin to subject them to discrimination. He knows that those who serve chicken may someday decide not to serve Giblets. And he knows that because of what they might do, they must be banned in Boston immediately. In other words, it is often necessary to engage in prejudgments if one is going to prevent prejudice. And discrimination must be used as a means of preventing discrimination. The mayor’s steps are encouraging but they do not go far enough. So, today, I am proposing a new series of criminal procedures that will be invoked against restaurant owners who may hold negative attitudes toward the Giblet community. My specific proposals follow in their entirety:

1. After someone concludes that a restaurant owner may, in fact, be homophobic, the accuser will simply enter a complaint with the local magistrates. If the complaint is deemed credible, the magistrates will have the person arrested and brought in for a public examination. If the magistrate is satisfied that the complaint is well-founded, the prisoner will be handed over to superior court. I will then petition the governor to re-establish a Court of Over and Terminer.

2. A person can potentially be indicted for afflicting someone with homophobia or for making an unlawful covenant with God in a church that does not allow everyone to make a similar covenant. Once indicted, the defendant will go to trial, preferably the same day.

3. If indicted, judges will apply peine forte et dure, in which stones will be piled on the accused’s chest until he can no longer breathe. If he is able to speak, the accused may plead not guilty and receive a jury trial. The jury will be comprised of a subset of those who brought forth the true bill resulting in the original indictment.

4. The evidence at trial will generally be comprised of the testimony of those afflicted by the practitioners of homophobia. In court, we will also rely heavily on the touch test, which was once used in Massachusetts. If the accused homophobe touches the Giblet while the Giblet is having a fit, and the fit then stops, that will mean the accused is the person who has afflicted the victim. It will demonstrate that they wielded power over them. But it will not be the only evidence deemed admissible in court.

5. Other evidence will potentially include: the confessions of the accused, the testimony of a person who confessed to being a homophobe identifying others as homophobes, and the existence of homophobe’s teats on the body of the accused. A homophobe’s teat is a mole or blemish somewhere on the body that is insensitive to touch. The discovery of such insensitive areas will be considered de facto evidence of homophobia, which is a form of insensitivity.

If convicted, appeal is allowed in which convicts will be subjected to an older and more established set of procedures known as Trial by Ordeal. (This is a slight modification we will call Appeal by Ordeal. It is justice with a poetic ring). The specific rules for appeal follow in their entirety:

1. The appellant may walk a nine feet, over glowing ploughshares, heated over an open fire. Innocence will be established by a complete lack of injury.

2. If the appellant is afraid of fire, he may instead remove a stone from a pot of boiling water, oil, or lead. Again, a lack of injury will establish innocence. People can reasonably disagree on a variety of issues such as the use of split infinitives. But no one should be expected to have his, her, or its food prepared by someone who disapproves of sodomy. Just as we must purge the food industry of people who prepare meals with unclean hands, we must also remove those who prepare meals with unclean thoughts.

Massachusetts has always been ahead of its time. It only makes sense that we should lead the long march through our economic and social institutions.

 



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
July 31, 2012 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , , , , ,
Filed Under: Columnists, Mike Adams
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

I Hate Mike Adams

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
June 10, 2012  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,

I love being hated. And if you don’t think I’m hated then you haven’t read my most recent rating on www.RateMyProfessor.com. For those too lazy to click the link (that means liberals), I’ve reprinted the latest rating below:

“I hate this guy on a personal level. He is a hyper-conservative homophobic a**hole. I disagree with his beliefs in every way and have never in my life had a professor or teacher I disliked more. I have to admit he’s a good professor as far as covering course material in a clear manner, but his class policy is also very strict.”

In just four sentences, this student has succinctly summarized at least six major problems with liberalism in America. They follow in no particular order of importance:

1. Hate speech is a one-way street. When conservatives speak, their speech can still be labeled “hate speech” even if it does not contain the word “hate.” But liberals can avoid a charge of hate speech even when using the phrase “I hate” as an opener. Liberal hate is well-intentioned and tends to focus on broader social goals. It isn’t the words that determine whether something is free speech. It’s the sentiment that lies behind them.

2. Everyone else is extreme. The term hyper-conservative is usually applied to people who believe crazy things like “marriage involves one man and one woman” or “it’s wrong to dismember innocent babies.” According to liberals, about 80% of the population is “hyper-conservative” for one reason or another.

3. Every disagreement involves a “phobia.” A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Liberals usually apply this term to people like me who are not afraid to say anything. Absence of fear? Irrational fear? It’s all the same in the mind of the liberal.

4. Disagreement with ideas justifies personal vilification. Note that the above-quoted student links total disagreement with ideas to maximum “dislike” for individuals. Also, note that he does so in the same sentence. The cause/effect connection is inescapable. Because he disagreed with my “beliefs” the liberal student “disliked” me more than any other teacher. The student makes no effort to give any other reason than the ideas themselves. In other words, hatred of ideas = hatred of persons. And the former justifies the latter.

5. Qualifications are of minimal relevance. Eventually, the liberal student admits I cover the material in a “clear manner” – but not until after all the other personal attacks are aired. Personal characteristics are more important than competence. That is why a liberal clings to affirmative action like a conservative clings to guns and religion.

6. Standards are a form of oppression. Maybe he was mad that my ban on laptops in class kept him from getting status updates from the Perez Hilton Facebook fan page while listening to my lectures. Regardless, the insistence that we all follow rules did not mesh with his otherwise stellar commitment to equality. Liberals think standards are fine as long as they are applied to other people. When applied to everyone, the interest in equality is often replaced by an interest in tolerance.

Oddly enough, I feel sorry for this disgruntled student – although I’m glad he helped everyone better understand the liberal mindset. But he should not have had to wait until the end of the semester to express his hatred. So I’m coming to the rescue with a new plan than will help angry liberals (please pardon the redundancy) while earning me money for guns, cigars, guitars, and ammunition.

My plan is pure genius. It’s the new “I Hate Mike Adams” t-shirt, which will be available in small, medium, large, and extra-large sizes. This new t-shirt will be sold at all of my speeches under the following variable pricing scheme:

$12 for conservatives

$15 for liberals

$20 for feminists

$50 for homosexual rights activists

My reasoning for variable pricing is simply that some groups are angrier than others and will get more benefit from expressing their hatred. So, naturally, they should have to pay more. If you are a liberal, feminist, or homosexual activist who is taking one of my courses then feel free to wear it to class.

The “I Hate Mike Adams” t-shirt will replace the need for anonymous hate speech on RateMyProfessors.com. Everyone can come out of the closet at once and start contributing to my early retirement. And that’s a cause that both Mike Adams and his haters can get behind!



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Mike Adams
June 10, 2012 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: ,
Filed Under: Columnists, Mike Adams
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen

Obama’s MoveOn.org division apparently high

By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
June 4, 2012  •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , ,

Join them as they get high! Yes, the extreme leftists at MoveOn.org want to fly their left-wing, class-division message up high, way over and around the heads of regular folks who might otherwise be enjoying a break from it all, all summer long.

And they want to do it using carbon-emitting and noise and visual pollution-spewing airplanes. Across America.

You can’t make this stuff up. I mean you’d have to be high.

Yeah, it’s like I say: there’s nothing like enjoying a hot dog at the ball park or a day at the beach or a nice family hike while a far-left political organization representing Barack Obama flies banners from airplanes over your head and your family’s heads, with neat, far-left, nation-diving, negative political and personal attack messaging, in lame bumper-sticker form.

Nothing says summer like hard-left hypocrisy and politics.

…To say nothing of the discussion and laughs sure to be had over burgers and beers about the pollution being caused, and that carbon footprint business that the left has, until now, pretended was a dire emergency that simply had to be addressed in every manner and form, and which they pretended to care about more than, well, by golly, anything else in the world, on account of the Earth being in a corporation-caused “man-made global warming” path to Hell, or whatever their God AlGore (with a shout-out to Gaea) has been yammering on about for years.

Dear MoveOn member,

We just launched 99airlines, our program to fly airplane banners over high-profile Mitt Romney events with messages from the 99%.

And what’s the coolest part? You get to decide what the banners say! If you could fly a message over Mitt Romney’s head, what would it be?

Will you suggest a short, pithy, memorable phrase for a 99airlines banner? Or check out and rate other people’s ideas?

Imagine if Mitt Romney and his Super PAC friends had to deal with the sights and sounds of airplanes following them everywhere, reminding Americans how Romney stands for corporations and the 1%. Reporters at the events will film and write about the banners—it’ll drive Romney and his corporate backers crazy.

That’s why we’re taking it to Romney, exposing him as Mr. 1%. Here’s the banner we flew over a Romney fundraiser in Boston last week.

99airlines banner flown<br /><br /> over a Boston fundraiser for Mitt Romney on May 24, 2012

We’re ready to fly a whole lot more over his high-profile appearances this summer, including fundraisers and a major event with Latino political leaders.

We need you to submit your ideas today. And the highest-rated, most shared, and most timely messages from the 99% will get flown over Romney’s head. So get your ideas online today!

MoveOn members stepped up and funded 99airlines as a way to combat the Super PAC ads and corporate money that will flood into this year’s election. We’re transforming Mitt Romney’s 1% fundraising tour into an airborne progressive message machine that will be seen by the people at the events and the media covering them.

They’ve got millions of dollars, but we’ve got more people and more creativity than they can muster. If you submit your ideas—-and make sure as many people as possible rate and contribute ideas—99airlines can define Mitt Romney and the people he represents in a visible, memorable way.

Thanks for all you do.

–Garlin, Elena, Emily, Victoria, and the rest of the team

I think this stupid, annoying idea is destined to backfire on them like their own cars might after fueling them with bacon grease or wood chips or whatever the cool kids are using these days for fuel. So I should encourage you all to contribute.



Possibly related posts:

 

• By (links to archive) • Twitter link or Web site: Joel Johannesen
June 4, 2012 •Leave a Comment
Tagged With: , , ,
Filed Under: Bold Blog
• Also follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter -- @JoelJohannesen