Obama-nazis going after Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck calls dickhead Obama a "racist," which is exactly what he is, and Obama's leftist media cronies go after him with a threat of a boycott.

Let's ignore the fact that anyone disagreeing with the left on anything has been labeled a racist for decades... everyday... it's perfectly fine when they race-bait. Bush was constantly called a nazi and a racist. Same with Palin. Heck, anyone even remotely criticizing Obama on anything has been called that at least once or twice.

Heck, here's a perfect example of leftist "I don't get the irony." "Don't support those who hate." Man, I wish I could make this stuff up. Beck accusing someone else, Obama, of hate is hate. But the reverse? Naaaaaaaah.

While I'm fairly certain Fox News will stand up for Glenn Beck to some degree, more so than the shits at CNN would have, and find new advertisers, it's time to stand up against companies who support the left in their witch-hunts.

Sure, they're free to advertise where they want, and should be, but you're free to boycott them, just like the left would.

So far make sure to boycott: Travelocity, ConAgra, Roche, Radio Shack, Sanofi-Aventis, SC Johnson, Progressive Insurance & Geico.

Hey, Geico, fuck you and your little lizard. And Radio Shack, you only sell crap anyway.

Update:

The race-baiting entitlement-whores at the NAACP got in on the Beck-bashing.

Mr. Beck’s statement was irresponsible and inflammatory at a time when as a nation we are attempting to engage in a constructive dialogue on race.

Really? Here's an idea, fuckwits - if this is in anyway true, how about getting folks on the left to apologize for calling anyone that doesn't agree with their policies and positions on race "racist" like every second of every day, and ending the practice in the future?

Beck’s statements are an attempt to divide when we need to be united, an attempt to inflame with rhetoric when we need to discuss with thoughtfulness the serious question of race.

Is that what calling someone a "racist" does? Gee, geese, look at them ganders.

It is a futile effort to distract from the serious issues of health care, the economy and the environment – issues that President Obama is tackling with foresight and fortitude.

Riiiiiiight. Because bringing up some minor comment made by a talk-show host in one little segment, calling people to arms to boycott his show, is really, really, really focusing on the above-mentioned "serious issues." I mean, that wouldn't be distracting at all, to make a big deal over a word tossed about by the left on a daily basis, would it?

How could the President be a racist?

By behaving in a racist fashion, dipshits.

Benicio del Toro = another Hollywood douchebag

While it is hardly surprising to find another leftist Hollywood actor elitist hypocrite moron spouting off sanctimonious liberal idiocy, it is amusing to see one storm off in a bitchy hissy fit when called out on his or her disassociation with reality and distorted historical revisionism.

Yeah, Benicio. Somehow in a four and a half hour film, you couldn't find time to point out that the guy you're portraying was a homicidal maniac? That's kind of like doing a five-hour miniseries about Jeffrey Dahmer, never mentioning murder and only saying that he liked to have friends over for snacks.

A Must Read

The Diversity Recession, or How Affirmative Action Helped Cause the Housing Crisis

Rather than make the fundamental reforms needed to help the bottom half actually become economically productive and domestically stable enough to afford to buy a home, the government tried to juice the home-ownership rate directly.

In a nutshell, rather than making any attempt to address the problem of poverty itself (and what the government should be responsible in that regard, of course, is up to much debate), any system of "objective measurements" was considered racist and discriminatory, and the Feds encouraged riskier business practices to make the system more inclusive. In other words, common sense and thoughtful, objective business practices were to blame, not actual individuals personal responsibility and incomes.

This is completely analogous to how affirmative action thinking has warped the education system. Objective measures like GPA and test scores are increasingly considered racist, and the responsibility for achievement has shifted from individual students to the institutions themselves. Rather than address any problems with academic preparation prior to college, whether with the students or the K-12 schools, universities are expected to create a level playing field, shifting the blame to an objective system, vilifying real success, diluting the quality of education for all, and creating unfairness all around.

Something to keep in mind as the Federal government, both Democrats and Republicans alike, contemplate a $700 Billion dollar bailout, at least.

Also, Michelle Malkin notes that:

"Student loans, car loans, and credit card debt have been snuck into the bailout proposal."

Another good argument against the public funding of education

Somehow, higher education has distorted the term "academic freedom" to mean "should have taxes and student fees fund professors with absolutely no expectation that they educate or have any job performance requirements what-so-ever" as well as "they can attempt to politically indoctrinate and belittle your children all they want, with extreme bias and a complete lack of ethical behavior - GIVE ME MONEY." Taxed citizens and tuition payers of Colorado, meet the shitheadfuck you bought and paid for.

Students in an English class at Metropolitan State College in Denver have been told to assemble criticisms of GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin that "undermine" her, and students say they are concerned about the apparent bias.

"This so-called 'assignment' represents indoctrination in its purist form," said Matt Barber, director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, whose sister, Janna, is taking the class from Andrew Hallam, a new instructor at the school.

The instructor also, according to students, is harshly critical of President Bush during his classroom English presentations. He reportedly has allowed students who identify themselves as "liberal" to deride and ridicule those who identify themselves as "conservative" or Republican.

If you were a high school teacher in San Francisco, and told students to write a paper undermining Barack Obama, (or say a radio host on a PRIVATELY owned radio station) you'd be labeled a fascist who abuses his position for the unethical purposes of brainwashing. But, hey, if you're being paid by state funds, and your students are a year older, then, hey, there should be no accountability at all.

Janeane Garofalo = Stupid Bitch

Yes, yes, little Ms. Funny-As-A-Car-Accident proves to be the world's biggest fucking hypocrite, and a completely deranged shithead, by suggesting that Republicans are less "decent" than Democrats and that the Republican party has become "a party of small minded, very petty, mean... unrestrained id." Right, because mean-spirited, sweeping generalizations are just the epitome of decency, open-mindedness and logical thought.

Political Correctness in, Education out

Far too few people are paying attention to the liberal fascism that is going on in higher education nowadays. Thankfully, there are a still a few out there who value personal liberty over political correctness.

As it stands, and I've seen this in action at the state university where I work, affirmative action/social justice political litmus tests have been put in place in the hiring practices of faculty and staff.

As Daphne Patai puts it:
"It's hard to say just when universities ceased to believe that education was a worthwhile mission. But that they have done so is beyond question. Among many signs of this reality is the anxiety to redefine the university's task. After all, educators who no longer expect or demand serious intellectual effort from their students are bound to look elsewhere for ways to justify their existence and that of their institutions. Enter the language of "community engagement," "outreach," "social justice," and "equity" (to name just a few of the terms now used as rallying cries on many campuses)."

Read this now!

Socialist State School System Attacks Homeschooling Mother

On a tip from Crush Liberalism:

Check this out. Public education and the arrogance of government-employed officials reached what may be an all time low in Missouri. I'm utterly surprised every time it sinks lower, but amazingly, our left-wing nanny-overlords, who seem hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives while at the same time both destroying liberty and public security, find new ways to climb down to the bottom.

A Missouri public school is pursuing a complaint against a mother for withdrawing her son and daughter from the school and teaching them at home, after an apparent threat to the daughter's life at the school.

As concepts such as discipline and personal accountability are no longer politically correct, safety in public schools has gone down the tubes.

The case involves Moberly, Mo., mother Anita Nicoli, who withdrew her daughter and a son from Moberly Middle School recently after what she has described as a two-year campaign of intimidation by other students.

The breaking point came when another student, who allegedly had harassed and assaulted her daughter, drew a picture of herself holding a gun and pointing it directly at Nicoli's daughter. The picture was passed around among students, she said.
....
[Nicoli] said her children had been subjected to harassment and badgering at the school for several years. She cited incidents of being slapped, bullied, kicked and butted, as well as threatened. Her son was shoved into a metal bar. Another time a student used a seat belt buckle on the school bus to hit him.

Not surprisingly, given the violence her children had been subjected to, Nicoli "notified the school of her homeschool plans and went forward."

How did the public education system respond? Anita "now has been cited in a complaint filed by the school after she withdrew two of her children."

That's absolutely correct, boys and girls. Nicoli, fearing not just as many homeschoolers do about the quality of education in pubic schools or politico-social indoctrination, but for the very physical safety of her kids, pulls her children out of a dangerous situation, and how is she rewarded by an intrusive state?

....she is accused of "educational neglect" by social services, based on a complaint from the school.

This, in microcosmic form, is a perfect example of much of what is wrong with the liberal philosophy of big government and the insanity of the leftist concept that "the government knows better than individuals, and has the right to interfere in personal lives and choices, for their own good." From taxation and redistribution of income, to grossly ineffective and intrusive state-run programs and solutions, the left is causing much of that country to abandon common sense and respect for individuals, and is turning America into a massively totalitarian incompetent socialist bureaucracy.

I might be more sympathetic to big government interference if big government were in any way GOOD at running our lives. But this is more like a sinking ship with a retarded poodle for a captain. Over the years, after losing so much respect for the public education system in the US, I've slowly come to the conclusion that privatization would be the best answer for reform - of course, this would mean privatization WITHOUT unwieldy and useless government restrictions. The bloated beast must abandoned.

Those looking to socialized medicine as a solution for rising health care costs and the proportion of uninsured citizens need look no further than this idiocy in Missouri to see exactly what to expect in terms of adequacy, accountability and pragmatism is a government run system.

Gay: Choice or Biological?

In the latest bit of pandering to special interest groups, most of the Democratic Presidential candidates decided to appear in a "debate" on gay issues on LOGO last night. To call it a debate is almost facetious, it was more like consecutive interviews. Being a cable network, they had to put some sort of minor celebrity on the panel, dipshit Melissa Etheridge, to dissolve any pretense that this interaction was to be thoughtful or informative rather than "entertaining." The most interesting exchange of the night, or at least insightful in that it revealed the empty-headedness of political correctness, was between the Moron Etheridge and Bill Richardson.

MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?

GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's –

MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition.

I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.

MS. ETHERIDGE: Well, it's hard when you are a citizen of a country that tells you that you are making a choice when you were born that way, and your Creator made you that way. And there's a document that was written 200 years ago that says you are entitled to certain rights that you are not given.
How can there be anything other than absolute equal rights for homosexuals?

Richardson of course failed to initially answer the question politically correctly, because he took a sensible, rational, fact-based approach rather than an idiotic "this is the way we feel it should be, so this is the way it is" left-wing approach. He missed the perfect opportunity to answer this question the only way it should ever be answered:

WHO REALLY GIVES A FLYING FUCK?

There are just so many insanely thoughtless assumptions in Etheridge's false dichotomy and in the perceived ramifications of taking one position or another. For one, why would or should choice or biology have any impact whatsoever on "absolute equal rights for homosexuals" in a free society? The assertion here is that personal choice would be some sort of secondary, inferior justification for equal rights compared to biochemical causes. But I'm going out on a limb and say that choice would be the superior justification, for choice shows conscious reasoning, sophisticated emotional responses and intelligent thought. Liberty means freedom to do as we choose, not simply be as we biologically "are." There is absolutely no reason why a man's choice to eat and enjoy foie gras should be any less important than his right to breathe oxygen. It is not the role of a government in a free society to value judge personal preferences.

Secondly, I'm utterly unconvinced one can completely divorce choice from biology - or that any action or behavior we take on can not be attributed to personal choice to some degree. I may have a biological impulse to screw every girl I see - and trust me I've seen quite a few that I've had the impulse to have sex with - but that does not mean I choose to act on those impulses every time I get them. Maybe I uncontrollably get an erection sometimes, but I choose when and where to use it. Assuming what we call "homosexuality" has any sort unique biological cause, every single gay person still makes the choice to act on that impulse and live as they do. And no, Melissa, that's not in any way insulting or demeaning to say. You're thinking human beings, and you choose your lifestyle choices as much as I choose to be monogamous. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that because any behavior could be classified as a "choice" that is somehow less deserving of being made.

Also, the idea that the only options to explain your sexual preferences are that you have to be born gay or you just pick being gay is simply silly. Why on Earth is so important that homosexuality be simply a biological characteristic, like skin color, rather than say a learned behavior or cultural characteristic or belief system, like say religion? Is it really so outrageous to suggest that there MIGHT be developmental factors that come in play that may, at least sometimes, lead to homosexual behavior?

Heck, I'm not even convinced entirely that "gay" is anything more than a social construct, derived simply from physical pleasures that could be fulfilled by other means. I've known way too many gay men that seemed far too obsessed with female "biology" to suggest to me that anyone is 100% gay. But, whatever. I probably wouldn't say that to any gay friend, because who am I to tell them how to behave or what sub-cultural decisions to make. What's important is, it doesn't matter one iota if my stupid theory is right, or Melissa's stupid theory is right, or someone else's much better reasoned and factually supported theory is right. The state has absolutely no place interfering or restricting these behaviors or feelings, regardless of their origin or consistency.

The important thing is that Richardson was right, he is no scientist. And neither are you, Melissa. Scientists are willing to admit when there is not enough evidence to draw any really realy conclusion. And they do not assume a conclusion because it justifies a political goal, or makes them feel warm and fuzzy. The real conclusions could well be interesting, but will the answers really make you feel any different, any more or less lesbian? They may seem a stupid question, but it stems from your stupid question. Why on Earth is it even important when we're talking about liberty and your own pursuit of happiness? You've set it up so that if you're wrong about biochemistry, then you're wrong about your life. And that's just inane, and shows a lack of understanding of what personal liberty and individual freedom means, and why it is important.

Did I develop a taste for foie gras at some point, did I learn to love it, or is enjoyment of the flavor hardwired into me? Who cares? I mean, it'd be interesting to know - but it should have no effect on my freedom to do and live as I choose fit.

America, Burying Its Head in the Sand a Second Time

Remember when 9/11 came as a big shock, despite all the previous Islamofascist jihadi-whackjob attacks on American targets before it? Remember when everyone, the public, the government, the media, ignored all the warning signs? Remember when Congress passed legislation to build a wall between the US and Mexico and Bush signed it? Remember how much of that security barrier has been built so far? Remember when those of us who pointed out the insanity of allowing millions of illegal aliens to sneak across the border, or to overstay their tourist visas, without any method of tracking them or evaluating their merit or decency or trustworthiness? Remember how we were labeled 'bigots' by the race-baiting left and turn-coat pseudo-conservative Republicans like Bush, McCain and Graham, for expecting the federal government to be concerned about national security as well as suggesting that the US actually screen and be selective about who we allow into this country, temporarily or permanently? Remember how they called us 'extremists' for daring to expect immigrants to follow the rules and for wanting them held accountable for breaking the rules? Remember Rio? That was a great album. Remember that big open space where the US and Mexico meet - a space easily crossed not just by Mexicans, but maybe some crazy Muslim extremists pretending to be Mexicans, nutty middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalists that want nothing better than to blow us all the hell up? Remember that sinking feeling in your gut when you watched those subhuman scumbags topple those tall buildings in Manhattan?

Yeah, you remember, when you're not too busy pointing fingers, dreaming up whacko conspiracy theories, or pandering to dipshit radical leftists that can't tell the difference between Mexicans, Hispanic Americans, legal immigrants, and illegal aliens - liberal fuckheads who will only use the vague word 'immigrant' in order to lump all those different categories together so that you look like a racist for your concern about the ILLEGAL segment of their moronically disingenuous blanket grouping. Yeah, you remember watching those planes hit the towers, thinking, "a lot of innocent people were just murdered by evil psychopaths." Yeah, you'll remember, when something bad happens again, and then you'll all run around screaming "Why didn't someone do something to protect us? How could you let it happen again?"

Why and how indeed? Well, your government, your mainstream media, and most of you, are completely ignoring the fact that an untold number of Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists, disguised as Mexican illegals, have crossed our border, settled down in sleeper cells, and are now planning to attack us again. The story is here. Why it isn't everywhere, all the time - why it isn't top priority for every single American - is beyond me.

Hi, everybody. Wake the fucking hell up.

Political Litmus Test in University of California Hiring

Yesterday, a friend of mine went for a job interview at one of the University of California campuses and was asked the following question:

"What is your definition of diversity and social justice? How would you incorporate those into your job?"

Yesterday, coincidentally, I was also talking to a friend about the disappearance of ethical behavior and integrity in American society.

This was quite obviously some sort of political litmus test. Employment at the taxpayer funded University of California is now contingent upon agreement with ill-defined, radical leftist concepts such as these. Support for anti-Caucasian bigotry and discriminatory socialist policies like affirmative action is now a requirement for holding a position in a state-funded university. To screen for individuals that support reverse discrimination and racist ethnic quotas shows an utter lack of fairness, and to use a state university position to further an extremist political agenda shows complete corruptness and a total lack of ethical behavior. Which, as a Californian, I have sadly come to expect from the administration and faculty at the University of California. As fair-minded freedom-lovers devoted to equal treatment and liberty, we must stop this sort of idealogical discrimination by governmental institutions and remind university officials that they serve the State and its people, and are employed to teach and support students, not to indoctrinate nor to exploit tax funds and student fees for their own political goals.

Obama Hates Black People

Here is another observation from the CNN/YouTube debate. Two African American girls asked, via video, the following question:

QUESTION: Hi. I'm Cecilla Smith.

QUESTION: And I'm Asanti Wilkins.

QUESTION: And we're from Pennsylvania, and my question is to all the candidates, and it's regarding the national minimum wage. Congress seems to never have a problem when it comes time to give themselves a raise. But when it came time to increase the minimum wage, they had a problem.

My question to the candidates: If you're elected to serve, would you be willing to do this service for the next four years and be paid the national minimum wage?

What was most interesting was Obama's response:

OBAMA: Well, we can afford to work for the minimum wage because most folks on this stage have a lot of money. It's the folks on that screen who deserve -- you're doing all right, Chris, compared to, I promise you, the folks who are on that screen.

Now, why exactly did our holier-than-thou socialist messiah Obama assume that the people on screen were not doing well, or not as well as Chris Dodd? Because they were black? I mean, maybe, just maybe, they asked the question because they make minimum wage. But at the same time, I've heard a number of people, from the wealthy to the not-so-well-off, discussing this issue. So it isn't a given. It could have just been something that concerned them, as it concerns the demonic Ted Kennedy.

It's this gross assumption of inferiority, especially an assumption based on group membership, which clouds a great deal of thinking on the left. The anti-individualism which colors liberalism often blinds many from seeing people as singular and unique. All solutions and problems, from the well-intentioned to the mean-spirited, are seen through the filter of tribalism - only the collective can be assigned attributes, and only the collective is capable of valid and viable action. Individual concerns are secondary.

Racism is a negative aspect of tribalism. It can only be overcome by ending, or at least downplaying, tribalist thought; it cannot be overcome by reversing, re-balancing or transforming the tribalism itself into another form like political correctness. All political correctness or affirmative action programs do is continue the practice of judging persons by their perceived group affiliations. And what is positive or negative in one context could be viewed as ugly or wonderful in another. A celebration of culture via food could be twisted into an ugly stereotype, for example. I would not go out on a limb and say people should not be proud of their personal cultural or sub-cultural heritages, but the problem with tribalism is that it puts heritage far above individual personality, achievement, and faults. Once individualism is placed in the fore-front, and heritage is placed on the back-burner, then heritage becomes unimportant in assessment of other individuals, a neutral, and can be appreciated for what it is, and not be used as a negative.

Sadly, Democrats like Obama get far too much mileage out of the promotion of tribalist thinking, and will use it for political leverage rather than trying to make the world a better place. And, as we see here, such fuzzy thought can even make a racist out of a race-baiter.

Hillary vs. Obama

I love a good debate.

Denice Denton, Still Dead

Those of us that work for the UC System received this annoying little message via email today from UC President Bobby Dynes:

TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY

Dear Colleagues:

As some of you may recall, June 24 marked the passing of one full year

since the death of Denice Denton, who served as Chancellor of the

University of California, Santa Cruz. I would like to take a moment to

pause and reflect on this great talent who was with us for far too short

a time, but who had a tremendous influence on so many throughout the

University and across the nation. As I recalled at her memorial

service, Denice moved us forward into new territories of excellence and

inclusiveness. Along the way, she inspired us, by her own example, to

strive always to be better people, and she challenged us to see our

differences as strengths to build upon and as opportunities to grow.

The University of California is the better for her having come our way

and, in remembering Denice, I hope we will continue to build upon the

rich legacy she left us.

The Santa Cruz campus has posted a special tribute to Chancellor Denton,

and it can be found at

http://www.ucsc.edu/administration/denice_denton/anniversary.asp. I

encourage you to take a moment to visit it and to be inspired by this

extraordinary and gifted individual.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Dynes

President

Now, of course, a corrupt piece of crap like Dynes would be the first to be unable to distinguish between "new territories of excellence" and innovative ways to rip off the taxpayer or bypass ethical behavior. When she was hired, the UC system also hired her lesbian lover to a newly created position in the UC Office of the President, which is in Oakland, which paid $192,000 annually. Denton received benefits that weren’t disclosed when she was hired - part of a UC executive scandal which also implicated our lovely President. She also managed to get $30,000 spent for a freaking "dog run" as part of $600,000 in renovations to the chancellor’s campus house.

Behavior such as this is the exact opposite of "[inspiring] us, by her own example, to strive always to be better people." Unless you of course you consider her an example of how not to behave.

But of course, since she was a lesbian, her incompetence and thievery are to be ignored by the lunatic left that has infested UC campuses with their insane agenda of diversity-bigotry over rational thought and fairness. In some great quest for "inclusiveness" people are to be judged on labels rather than morality and ability. I'm sure she was a fine engineer, but she was a piss-poor administrator and an even worse example of a principled person. She was a militant entitlementist, who thought anyone that dared disagree with her was a bigot, but it was she who showed true prejudice by suggesting she deserved special privilege and consideration due to her sexual orientation.

That said, that she chose to take her own life is a tragedy.