Protest Academy

It is about time the left creates a charter school devoted to liberalism. So they can start kids when they are young, you know, while mommy and daddy are hard at work trying to pay for their schooling. (Sounds just like higher education now)

That in mind, they can drop all the academic curriculum for a more “traditional” liberal one to teach the kids life lessons with courses like:

How to win friends while influencing protests

How to drop the F-bomb like the big leftists.

Life is one giant protest

Protesting for Profit

Don’t like it? Protest it

Fun with rocks and bottles

Writing your own protest lyrics

How to make a protest sign from a pizza box and broom handle.

How to get arrested protesting without knowing what you are protesting.

Creative fundraising techniques for any liberal cause

Justice bad — social justice good

Mocking opponents and defending the indefensible

Chant creators are always looking for talent

Big bucks in bigotry — Part 2: identity politics rules

Navigating hate speech: deflect and destroy

How to play the race card — always in style

A primer on anarchy

Then again, am I giving them ideas… or are they already teaching it in Public schools?

RightRing | Bullright

One liberal from Alabama with style

You have probably heard of him by now but in case you haven’t, he will impress you as the best poster child for vile liberals. In fact, there may even be a few liberals repulsed by him, but you likely would not hear them admit it. Why? Let the man tell you himself.

Liberal man loses job for calling Gatlinburg fire victims ‘toothless, pond scum’ Trump supporters

RightWing News

Have we become such pathetic wimps that words will NOW hurt us? Move over sticks and stones…

A young man from Alabama has called out residents of Gatlinburg as “mouth-breathing, toothless, Trump-suckin’ pond scum,” after last week’s deadly wildfires that have caused massive damage. That comment online has now cost him his job and has also made him public enemy number one in the eyes of online commentators, who are now pointing to him as the cause of the fire…

Read more

Oh, then he got fired. Well, I can’t say I’m sorry. Just what was it about the people or Gatlinburg that really set him off? A lot of people speculated he could be one of the arson suspects. Who knows, that might be a stretch?

But if there is one person who really identifies with arsonists that did it, here is your only friend in the world. Or maybe there are plenty of Liberals who do celebrate what the arsonists did that just aren’t as loud and proud about it as he is? What a way to fame. Wikipedia will now have a stupid liberal page with his name on it – Coleman Bonner.

Liberals, he’s all yours.

Saul move on over, reformation is coming

In 2008, the conversation was about a post-racial America. Now all anyone can hope for is a post-racial Obama. But that ain’t going to happen. We know that.

Roger Simon, co-founder of PJ media, wrote a piece on just that with just that conclusion. Racism has become the Holy Grail to Democrats — with their fictitious war on women coming in a close second. As he says, next up it is Hispanics.

Liberal Racism: Hispanics Are Next

Roughly ninety-five percent of racism in America today now either emanates from liberals or is generated by them. The Democratic Party relies on racism because, without the perception of serious ongoing racism in our culture, the identity politics on which the party depends would disintegrate. As presently constituted, they wouldn’t win another national or statewide election. This makes the Democratic Party by necessity a virtual racism-manufacturing machine.

The Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are not anomalies. They are the motor that drives the car. Barack Obama could in no way be a post-racial president as promised, even if he wanted to be (doubtful). He wouldn’t have had a party anymore.

The idea that the chief executive of our country would want to give special privileges to Latinos above and beyond the wishes of their future fellow citizens is not only morally repugnant, it is highly socially damaging. It drives us apart — and apparently deliberately.

My only question is: isn’t all this getting a bit old, even for Libs? So this is where we are.

Their tactics and arguments have become stale — to be kind — and that is what voters are now seeing. Senator Uterus has learned that lesson. Senator Mark Pryor said Obama was a drag on his campaign. Grimes couldn’t endorse Obama. How long can you push phony arguments until they get old, even laughable? (ridicule can be a positive thing)

Alinsky’s RULE #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

Liberals can be counted on to do what they always do, when they decide to move on they do so in lockstep. The new thing will be the rage, sucking up all the energy in the room, which backwashes old ideas that are no longer effective. “Don’t become old news.”

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

Of course, the new ideas will be just as specious as the old but that doesn’t matter because they are new. Leftists will tweak them along the way, the same way Obama revises his statements or the way they tweaked Obamacare. When everything is part of an evolving argument, a lot tends to get lost in the shuffle.

Remember the rules for radicals is geared to opposing typical activists or activism, and overwhelming them. If anything, the rules are about breaking rules, and it is always about what works — the ends justify the means. Hispanics beware.

RightRing | Bullright

Trouble in Ferguson’s Brown-ville – NYT style

Never, well almost never, will you see the Left get on the NYT for something. It’s almost taboo. But you have a freak instance where they criticize one of the left’s darling, heroes-in-the- making. Such is this case.

The New York Times did a mild article about Brown, compassionate yet confronting. What did they say that was so bad? Well, you can read the whole thing here. I’ll give a few select quotes. It is worth reading.

However, the real story now is in Leftville, where they have taken on and stopped just short of crucifying John Eligon, the author. So now there are scores of pieces written in opposition to what he wrote. What’s the Leftinistas’ old expression that they just want an honest debate? Nonsense. They claim to appreciate open discussion? No, they don’t.

The terrible story now of Brown’s death seems to be the postmortem one. Enter the wrath of the Left. Remember the name because, as Obama says, they have long memories. Whether John Eligon is aware or not, he walked through a door to an alternate universe.

Sometimes with the left you have to follow the evolution of the argument. That is exactly what we have here, all because NYT took a peek into what the Brown “tragedy” was about, the man at the center, and came up with a story that did not fit the Left’s narrative. Two things you have to remember about the left: 1) politics rules; 2) the narrative is everything – defer to #1. The author stumbled upon fractures in the second. NYT’s chief offense was being honest, for once.

It started with this interesting bit which set the stage.

FERGUSON, Mo. — It was 1 a.m. and Michael Brown Jr. called his father, his voice trembling. He had seen something overpowering. In the thick gray clouds that lingered from a passing storm this past June, he made out an angel. And he saw Satan chasing the angel and the angel running into the face of God. Mr. Brown was a prankster, so his father and stepmother chuckled at first.

“No, no, Dad! No!” the elder Mr. Brown remembered his son protesting. “I’m serious.”

And the black teenager from this suburb of St. Louis, who had just graduated from high school, sent his father and stepmother a picture of the sky from his cellphone. “Now I believe,” he told them. (NYT)

Well, I wondered if it was some sort of a premonition? I do take it seriously. But whatever, this was not what angered the Left. No, it was that he said Brown was “no angel”. The famous quote all the left is concentrating on — again, you do know the pack mentality.

Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel, with public records and interviews with friends and family revealing both problems and promise in his young life. Shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson, the police say he was caught on a security camera stealing a box of cigars, pushing the clerk of a convenience store into a display case. He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbled in drugs and alcohol. He had taken to rapping in recent months, producing lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar. He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor.

Now that did it. It gave the Left something they must attack, which forces the NYT to defend its article (or sell out Eligon) But this article created a whole subtext of dialogue – a firestorm. To a person, even in MSM media, they are attacking the article and author as insensitive and whacky, calling it a hit piece on Brown. Huffington Post declared: “NYT incites backlash after saying Michael Brown was no Angel.” See that? Blame NYT, at the same time the Left uses it to stir up defense of Brown, as a victim of the press. Then the NYT will also be blamed for the predictable reaction it will cause. Get it?

You didn’t think it was a political case? Wrong. It is now, that’s no secret on the Left. It has become a voter registration drive, straight up. But it is not one of those left vs right things. Yea, sure. Every time the left gets on board it is automatically a political issue. What don’t they politicize?

Here are a few objections to the article, and/or John Eligon. You know how the left treats anyone going against their narrative.

Daily Kos “I wonder how many obituaries for dead teenagers get the explicit “he was no angel” treatment from the sodding New York Times.”

Huffington Post, headline: “WATCH: New York Times Incites Backlash After Saying Michael Brown Was ‘No Angel'”

Salon called it an “outrageously skewed” article.

However, the generally respectful article has unwittingly demonstrated the media’s unconscious bias.

In an article that purports to be about the spiritual curiosity of a doomed teen, why is it necessary to hedge the writer’s argument with harmless details of his allegedly fraught youth? Because certain media outlets have aggressively spread certain details of Brown’s life, it seems that every news outlet needs to include details of Brown’s drug use and petty theft (which are normal teenage offenses) in order to remain “objective.”

Why talk about his actual life? Well, you see where the Salon piece is headed. Dare you mention anything untoward about “Big Mike” then you are biased with an agenda because this line of reasoning(facts) is agenda driven. They claim NYT leads the reader to conclude maybe his fate was sealed. Leftists do not like that. Rather they assert he was a good kid from a good family ready to head off to college. So its alright if they intentionally color the picture of “Big Mike”, damn anyone reporting details about Mike. Wait till they all go after this cop’s life, in lockstep. That will be “fair game”.

Remember in the OJ case when they broadcasted “innocent until proven guilty” mantra? Remember the lectures on reserving judgement? Some call for the cop’s execution. They should have dragged him behind the police station and shot him. Now listen to their hollow chants about justice.

Back to this article. Couldn’t they just as easily say ‘those details about “Big Mike”only serve to humanize the man?’ No. This is just planting a flag on Michael Brown’s hill to the next soul even considering any revelations about Brown or his past. So that is it folks, if they went to war with the NYT over this, you can be sure anyone else is cannon fodder.

RightRing | Bullright

Sage wisdom on Democrats

BurtPrelutsky.com — Burt spelled it out perfectly:

“It doesn’t happen too often, but every once in a while someone forwards something to me from the Internet that I haven’t seen before and that actually grabs my attention. In this case, it was a series of ways that one could easily identify a liberal. I mean aside from asking them if they happen to be journalists, judges, social workers, teachers, professors, illegal aliens, actors, musicians or convicted felons.”

“Here it is, with a few of my own modifications:

(1) A liberal is someone who thinks Republicans are waging a war on women, but that the Muslim world isn’t.

(2) A liberal is someone who says to a pregnant woman: “Don’t smoke, it’ll hurt your baby,” but tells her it’s quite okay to abort that same baby.

(3) A liberal is someone who thinks Fox News lies, but Obama doesn’t.

(4) A liberal is someone who lives in a gated community or behind a high wall, but says that a border fence won’t work.

(5) A liberal is someone who wails about “corporate welfare,” but thinks it’s great that Obama bailed out General Motors to save union contracts and blew a billion tax dollars on certain-to-fail green energy companies in exchange for campaign contributions.al

(6) A liberal is someone who protested the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and proclaimed the Patriot Act fascistic, until Barack Obama took office.”

 

I’ll add a couple of my own:

A liberal wants to keep abortion safe, legal and always an option; but salt needs to be heavily regulated and restricted.

A liberal thinks a woman’s body is her own, and permanently enslaved to the DNC.

A liberal thinks overpopulation is a huge problem, but open-border immigration is not.

A liberal thinks a Court decision on abortion is “a right” and “law of the land”, but the second amendment is not.

A liberal thinks that “Congress shall make no law” means Congress shall make laws and regulate.

A liberal thinks “we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.”

A liberal thinks its greedy to keep your own money but taking it from others is not. — (paraphrasing Thomas Sowell)

——-

As  Thomas Sowell puts it:

“I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” —
Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays

RightRing | Bullright

Activists Are US: Liberals in rabid political mode

(at a new high even for them)

There are a plethora of areas which tie into the rabid nature of today’s “progressives”.

The latest on Obama’s ‘phoney scandal’ list is the VA and poor treatment of vets, which is an example. There were calls for Shinseki to step down, rejected out of hand.

There is a deeper issue here and its personal with Libs. Do you think the Libs really care about the VA or veterans? They are proving which is more important by defending Shinseki over the widespread mismanagement in the VA.

But first Shinseki’s history. All you hear is he is a four star general served in the military. If you remember Iraq he was a steady voice in the Liberals’ criticism of the war. He was wildly cited by Liberals in their anti-war campaign. Because he disagreed with Rumsfeld on the number of troops in an surge, he was hailed for his disagreement.

Now at the VA, Democrats’ knee-jerk reaction is to defend him, and since he was their VA pick. No doubt past-disagreement politics factor into the administration’s defense of Shinseki. Had he not been useful to them, he probably wouldn’t be there now, nor entitled to Dems defense. That’s my guess. That aside, he became a default ally of the Left. His post military career includes positions at corporations, also contractors to the military.

But the people frustrated with the VA don’t care about that. It matters to Liberals since politics trumps reality. Were it not for Obama being in the White House, and his man Shinseki at VA, Dems would have no problem politicizing the VA situation for political gain. (as if they are out there by their lonesome defending the military – the way they frame every other group they pander to.) It’s what they do.

The White House says they have full confidence in him, and he says he serves at the pleasure of the president. He said he has no plans of resigning. Veteran organizations have called for his resignation for over a year. He might have been wrong there, he serves the Vets in that capacity. Wouldn’t you think he would have said as much instead of just at the pleasure of the president? What is going on in the VA is symptomatic of what happens in Government, and the Left’s mindset. They instinctively protect government bureaucracy. Backlog? Alter the books, fixing the books not patients.

Another issue, in no particular order, is Liberal activism in media on business. The CEO is forced from his office at Mozilla for his past support of “prop 8” in CA. Not that he was against anyone, just supported traditional marriage. He wasn’t out there with a megaphone. But the left went at him like a pack of wolves for it. So he’s out. It’s all part of the culture that tolerates what is politically convenient — even if it is the mismanagement or abuse in government.

Along the same lines is liberal activists supporting same-sex marriage. And you have the LGBT movement/agenda lashing out at anyone who stands up for traditional marriage. Chick-fil-A anyone? Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty? Oppose their agenda and look out. Standing for tradition is taboo.

On the stimulus, same thing, opposition was hatred of Obama. They distorted and extorted Mitch McConnell’s quote that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” into ‘hatred of Obama’. Then came the mythical “War on women”.

Then you have their defense of ObamaCare despite roll out problems. The defense of ObamaCare stretched from accusations of extreme right-wing politics and branded opponents unreasonable. They did anything to ram it through. Anyone who disagreed was driven by hatred, bigotry or racism toward Obama. The strategy was to demonize any opposition and question their motives.

You have the environmental Nazis in a tizzy defending global warming and Michael Mann, their super hero. (remember the hockey stick) Enter Mark Steyn who said as much in his columns and suffered their attacks, along with National Review, for it. Mann sued both for defamation of character for criticizing his work. Rule number I , tho shalt not criticize or insult Leftisit academia. Buck that and the collective come at you. (by design) But now even defending yourself against their intimidation and attacks can cause defense attorneys to cringe. Possibly even dropping their client.

Along those lines the Keystone Pipeline. The Left channeled all its environmental strength and money to oppose the pipeline for five years. Obama being a creature of the radical Left himself has handed off and stalled the process multiple times. The Left is willing to do anything to “save the earth”. (while destroying civilization as we know it) The lizards’ welfare trumps human interests. Stuck on Steyer; all who oppose them feels their global-warming wrath.

Then we have campuses, universities, and collective academia. This is on various levels on the left’s hot button issues. But gone are the sit-ins, today its about controlling and wielding the strings of government in the most radical ways they can. A pox on anyone or thing that disagrees. It’s called progressive, and so loud and paramount is it that it repels anything in its wake. And the proofs, or fruits, of it are demonstrated across campuses. That’s an entire subject but consider just some of their main bullet points. (Issues coincide with the radical Left, MoveOn and the LGBT movement et al) Not to leave out class warfare — always a popular favorite.

The anti-war left, the anti-Israel left, the pro-appeasement, pro-abortion left, multicultural left, and the big government left, with their ever-present pro amnesty, pro-illegal alien, social justice, pro-LGBT agenda in tow. However, they demand not just in kind support but their full agenda. No a la carte.

What’s new is not just their grievance list or their lobbying power, for their cause, the new tactic is singling out anyone disagreeing with any part of their long laundry list. That is one big difference. It attacks anyone or anything that disagrees. It demands synergy from everyone, despite your own views. And the means is their way, exclusively. No lone cowboys. It plays out in social media, which apparently was bequeathed to them alone.

Start with a few honorable mentions on their menu: Israel boycott, pushing boycotts of Jews on campuses, summer camps on anti-Semitism, and their anti-military lockstep. (they love everything about big government except robust defense?) But factor in the cadre of other issues above and you have a volatile cocktail.

Along comes  Condoleezza Rice and their wrath pours out. Not like she’s Ann Coulter but the same treatment applies. That was only on the heels of Ayaan Hirsi Ali being dis-invited to speak at Brandeis because she did not represent their values. Cair protests and the University of Michigan shuts out the film “Honor Diaries” – calling it hate Anyone speaking to them has to meet their ideological criteria or they get the banner of protest. (that alone rallies their support) Now they won’t tolerate anyone out of lockstep. It sends a powerful, albeit chilling, message to others. If you marginally disagree, you might as well be in full disagreement. Well, not quite your Aunt Nelly’s bra-burning liberals.

Then we have the old standard of the Left, racism. Used to maintain control and intimidation on their enemies, it is their accusation of choice, freely applied. The way it plays out though is the best case against the left. It’s not only militant, it is radical to the core. So the rabid way it treats others is particularly aggressive on campuses where it strives to set the culture precedent for the rest of us. Going after anything perceived racist, or related to Israel, and believing UN and the human rights campaign are its personal tools inspires their activism and emboldens their radical posturing.

I’ve concluded it is now more a culture of intolerance. We’ve had political correctness for decades. Now it is full ‘offense’. More like pc swat teams, pc paratroopers, pc snipers, and a whole armament assembling to deal with their perceived grievances. I’d say they managed to bring all the issues to bear, unified, to make their case. Breaching one pet grievance is to breach their entire code of conduct. If only one side, theirs, sees it as an all out war, then we have a problem. One should no sooner dismiss this open assault than dismiss the Islamic extremists’ and terrorists’ agenda.

In fact, progressives, Democrats, ‘Liberals’, Marxists, and multiculturalists can see bigotry just about everywhere: from the Internet, to reality TV, to board rooms, to talk radio and sports. Everywhere it seems except where blatantly obvious to anyone not blinded by progressive orthodoxy; institutionalized in Universities, on campuses, in the administration, bureaucracy, in the Left, the grievance industry, the LGBT movement, the environmental movement, in Party politics and their conventions, or Islamic radicals. Those are just some highlights of what passes for the progressive left’s politics today — which usurps almost every facet of culture.

RightRing | Bullright

Paula Deen debacle and the left’s economic justice

Paula is a good ol’ gal, with no offense meant. She is a personality and now a celebrity. But based on a word she used some time ago, her reputation is under fire and her job on the line, due to her own words in a deposition. I have some sympathy for her situation.

*This is not a defense of Paula, but then THIS is not just about Paula either.

Does it show how vulnerable a celebrity can be for their words? Hardly, she is the exception and not the rule. After all, look what so many celebs have said or done. It doesn’t cost them their position.

Now I am saying forgiveness does have a place. We as society should take that as one of our duties and exercise it seriously. It makes another statement about the times, the penalty for telling the truth. She’s the latest casualty.

MY question is are we going to now put corporations and sponsors in charge of ethical conduct — or society — to be the ‘culture police’? Are these guys the poster boards for ethical conduct? Should they be? Are they up for the job? Resumes anyone?

For the most part, the left advocated and justified Food Channel’s reaction, as the self-appointed race and “civil rights” police. There must be consequences for using such language, even in the past, they say. If it were anyone else would they have a different view? It wouldn’t surprise me. But this fits their political paradigm and they applaud it.

Lets go a bit further. It seems to be a double standard for the left. These are the greedy corporate titans the Marxist left loves to blame for everything from global warming, to murders on the street, to crooked politics, not to mention the human and civil rights abuses. But in this case, the left will salute a corporation for its knee-jerk reflex to fire Paula because of a word she said she used 30 years ago. (at a traumatic time)

But think about it, there are boycotts and there are “boycotts”. The Left and the LGBT lobby have used boycotts as their tool against any opposition. It goes hand in hand with their economic argument, or their social justice agenda. So they attack businesses who do not support them. For example, they are calling out corporations for having business ties or a relationship supporting Israel, based on their own political ideology.

Now what is worse: the left taking an economic position based on sexuality or a disdain for Israel, or simply keeping cultural issues in the social fabric of society – and out of the corporate board rooms? But no, can’t do that because this is how the activist left operates across the spectrum, from the board room to the public square.

Yet they want to make the corporations the cops on the beat for society? Really?

These leftists don’t like government making laws that might ban certain sexual behavior, but they are okay with using corporations as the arbiter for personal conduct? (as long as they align themselves with the uber-Left politics) What happens when businesses take positions that are not convenient or in line with their sociopolitical positions – and their ideology? Ah oh! They are treading where they ought not tread.

Sure there is room for forgiveness. I thought the left always lectured us about that?

Update… an interesting thing happened, which often does in these evolving events:
George Zimmerman’s trial began on the Trayvon Martin shooting. The prosecution’s star witness, a teenaged black girl, comes out to testify that Trayvon described Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker“. Asked if she thought that was a racist remark, she said “no”.

Then in the aftermath punditry — always the last word in all things ethical — debated it suggesting that was just the way they talked in her community. Oh, those double standards are rearing their ugly little heads once again. See how this game works?

But apparently she didn’t say that in her prior statements because she did not want to offend Trayvon’s mother. Okay, so you didn’t want to mention it to his mother, but you do not believe its a racist remark? Okay. The punditry concludes that’s just how people talk in that community, like a dialect. Glad that’s settled.

Anyone up for a good game of whack-a-mole?