Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Profiles in Courage: Clarence Thomas

February 26, 2008

While some prominent black people prefer to engage in criminal behavior like crack cocaine-smoking sodomy, others show themselves to be true American patriots. A prime example of this is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Ever since his contentious 1991 confirmation hearing, he’s had to endure the slings and arrows of outraged racist moonbat media people. Case in point:

Two years and 144 cases have passed since Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke up at oral arguments. It is a period of unbroken silence that contrasts with the rest of the court’s unceasing inquiries.

Hardly a case goes by, including two appeals that were argued Monday, without eight justices peppering lawyers with questions. Oral arguments offer justices the chance to resolve nagging doubts about a case, probe its weaknesses or make a point to their colleagues.

Left, right and center, the justices ask and they ask and they ask. Sometimes they debate each other, leaving the lawyer at the podium helpless to jump in. “I think you’re handling these questions very well,” Chief Justice John Roberts quipped to a lawyer recently in the midst of one such exchange.

Leaning back in his leather chair, often looking up at the ceiling, Thomas takes it all in, but he never joins in.

Monday was no different. Thomas said nothing.

He occasionally leans to his right to share a comment or a laugh with Justice Stephen Breyer. Less often, he talks to Justice Anthony Kennedy, to his immediate left.

Thomas, characteristically, declined to comment for this article. But in the course of his publicity tour for his autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son,” the 59-year-old justice discussed his reticence on the bench on several occasions.

The questions may be helpful to the others, Thomas said, but not to him.

“One thing I’ve demonstrated often in 16 years is you can do this job without asking a single question,” he told an adoring crowd at the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

The book tour showed that the topic comes up even among friendly audiences.

Indeed, Thomas’ comment was provoked by this question: Why do your colleagues ask so many questions?

His response: “I did not plant that question. That’s a fine question. When you figure out the answer, you let me know,” he said.

Thomas understands the nature of his work. He knows full well that the Supreme Court overreached its Constitutional authority back when it was run by Communists like Earl Warren and Thurgood Marshall, its overreach gaining unprecedented levels of anti-American totalitarianism at the ideological behest of worthless Trotskyite Micks like Brennan. Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts, are doing their part to limit the Court’s role to its historic function: settling Constitutional disputes between the Legislature and the Executive, and correcting the overreach of lower Court that overlook the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution.

You know what makes anti-Thomas smear jobs like this one evern more ridiculous? Thomas has friends on the Left side of the Court who agree with him.

The typical hourlong argument session can sometimes be difficult, even for a practiced questioner.

“I really would like to hear what those reasons are without interruption from all of my colleagues,” Justice John Paul Stevens said at an argument in the fall.

Even a treefrog like Stevens wishes the Court would shut up and get to work. Why doesn’t he get a nasty article about him? Because the media agrees with his politics, that’s why.

In the past, the Georgia-born Thomas has chalked up his silence to his struggle as a teenager to master standard English after having grown up speaking Geechee, a kind of dialect that thrived among former slaves on the islands off the South Carolina, Georgia and Florida coasts.

He also has said he will ask a pertinent question if his colleagues don’t but sees no need to engage in the back-and-forth just to hear his own voice.

Lately, he has focused on the latter reason.

“If I think a question will help me decide a case, then I’ll ask that question,” he told C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb in October. “Otherwise, it’s not worth asking because it detracts from my job.”

He talked in that same interview about descriptions of him as the silent justice.

The racists are giving Thomas trouble because, despite the fact that he didn’t grow up in an English-speaking household, he’s trying to master English as a second language. I’ll take that over your English-refusing illegal alien any day; but to some in this country, foreigners who refuse to speak any language but the hodge-podge gobbledygook Satan taught their ancestors should receive more rights in this country than a hero like Thomas. Liberals are kooks; what do you expect?

Suppose surgeons started discussing the merits of removing a gallbladder while in the operating room, Thomas said, as quoted by U.S. News & World Report. “You really didn’t go in there to have a debate about gallbladder surgery,” he said. Similarly, “we are there to decide cases, not to engage in seminar discussions.”

Exactly. Shut up and do your job, Court. Nobody’s paying you to gesture emptily and hear yourselves think. We want speedy opinions pulling the law back in line with the Original intent, not a bunch of talky-talky Communists spewing Marxist vomit all over our hallowed documents and traditions. Thomas, like Scalia, Alito, and Roberts, is a true American hero for understanding all this. The media can crucify him for it, but he’ll continue to endure for many a year yet.

Please keep our America-loving Justices hale and healthy, Lord, and smite our infanticide-loving enemies with plagues during Republican Administrations.

Advertisements

Barack Obama is a Homosexual Crackhead

February 22, 2008

Looks like the Democrats are nominating <a href=”http://newsguy.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/10/1291166-obamas-alleged-gay-sex-and-drugs-limo-party”>only their finest</a> representative, as usual.
<blockquote>The meteoric rise of US Presidential candidate Barack Obama may be headed for a crash landing, if charges of a homosexual tryst and crack-cocaine drug binge are proven to be true.

The shocking allegations, made by a Mr. Larry Sinclair, first appeared on a self-made YouTube video several weeks ago, shortly before the hotly-contested South Carolina primary. In the video, Mr. Sinclair alleges that back in 1999, when Mr. Obama was still a state representative, he smoked crack cocaine while receiving oral sex from Mr. Sinclair.

In an interview with talk radio show The Right Perspective, Mr. Sinclair says he was running drugs back in 1999, and was in Chicago “doing business”. “I wanted to meet someone who knew the city,” he said. Mr. Sinclair’s limo driver introduced the two, who hit it off immediately. After Mr. Obama scored cocaine for him, Mr. Sinclair’s “gaydar” went off and made a pass at Mr. Obama, who did not refuse. It was then when Mr. Sinclair allegedly performed oral sex on Mr. Obama. Mr. Sinclair also alleges that Mr. Obama smoked crack cocaine while receiving oral favors from Mr. Sinclair.

The following day, Mr. Sincalir alleges that Mr. Obama visited him at his hotel room for a “quickie,” where they did more cociaine and Mr. Sinclair performed oral sex on Mr. Obama for a second time.

Mr. Sinclair told The Right Perspective that he can prove his allegations, providing hotel receipts and the limousine driver who introduced him to Mr. Obama and whose limo the alleged scandal occurred. Mr. Sinclair can also provide details on Mr. Obama’s genitals, too. Mr. Sinclair believes Mr. Obama is an “on-the-down-low” closet case and is likely bisexual.

Mr. Sinclair believes that Mr. Obama’s honesty over the drug issue is the more important issue at stake, maintaining Mr. Obama’s revelation of drug use being firmly in the past is not true and that Mr. Obama has not stopped using cocaine.

Mr. Sinclair asserts that he has been trying to get word of his alleged tryst with Mr. Obama out since last Fall, and YouTube was a “last resort” after both MSNBC and The New York Post buried a story based on his claims, despite having verified them. “It’s like, anything [negative] you have on Obama is untouchable, it’s forbidden” and blames Obama campaign manager David Axelrod for engineering a media blackout on the story. Mr. Sinclair has threatened to sue David Axelrod, for running a “smear campaign” that attempts to tie Mr. Sinclair with a rival political campaign.</blockquote>
Heh heh heh. THIS is the man the Democrats want to send to the White House, a sodomite drug addict with little experience and a penchant for lying. Why is the MSM ignoring this story? Where is the Communist News Network’s reporting? <a href=”http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmM2NDQ3ZWQ1YWM0Y2QyZTUxMDdkY2M2OTJlNGE5MWE=”>Oh, wait.</a>
<blockquote>But maybe it’s not so simple. Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier — also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)

I don’t know how Barak Obama’s parents met. But the Kincaid article referenced above makes a very convincing case that Obama’s family, later, (mid 1970s) in Hawaii, had close relations with a known black Communist intellectual. And, according to what Obama wrote in his first autobiography, the man in question — Frank Marshall Davis — appears to have been Barack’s own mentor, and even a father figure. Of course, since the Soviet Union itself no longer exists, it’s an open question what it means practically to have been politically mentored by an official Communist. Ideologically, the implications are clearer.

Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing the questions which might arise about how Senator Obama’s mother, from Kansas, came to marry an African graduate student. Love? Sure, why not? But what else was going on around them that made it feasible? Before readers level cheap accusations of racism — let’s recall that the very question of interracial marriage only became a big issue later in the 1960s. The notion of a large group of mixed race Americans became an issue during and after the Vietnam War. Even the civil-rights movement kept this culturally explosive matter at arm’s distance.

It was, of course, an explicit tactic of the Communist party to stir up discontent among American blacks, with an eye toward using them as the leading edge of the revolution. To be sure, there was much to be discontented about, for black Americans, prior to the civil-rights revolution. To their credit, of course, most black Americans didn’t buy the commie line — and showed more faith in the possibilities of democratic change than in radical politics, and the results on display in Moscow.

Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family’s background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.</blockquote>
Nevermind, they’d never turn on a fellow traveler. Like father, like son.

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, if you don’t see Obama as a national disgrace, you’re probably one yourself. All Americans must do everything in their power to keep this man as far away from the White House as humanly possible. The FBI shouldn’t even allow him to visit there as a tourist. He’d probably end up getting arrested in the restroom for lewd conduct and drug abuse.

Coulter: America Deserves to be Run By Moonbats

February 8, 2008


Ann Coulter has a point, here. If the Democrats win, the American people will flock to the Party of God. As it is, 8 years of moral, sensible government have made the American people complacent, and ripe for the lies and distortions of a deviant candidate like Hitlery.

As usual, Coulter’s one of the smarter analysts out there. (I do wish she’d strap her chest down, but otherwise I also find her a very moral, and very alluring, woman.) Where I tend to disagree with her is her failure to endorse Brownback. I’m not sure America can stand 4 years of Hitlery, even if it’s followed by another 2 decades of Republican dominance. We’re still languishing under a recession caused by Bill Clinton; do we really want a Hitlery recession added onto that? We’ll be in the Great Depression in no time if we keep letting Democrats rule us.

I agree with Coulter about one thing, though: maybe America deserves to be run by Democrats. If we can’t elect God’s candidate, then Hell’s choice is our substitution.

Demonwatch: Madonna

January 15, 2008

I feel the time is ripe to discuss the deviant and anti-Christian practices of the harlot known as the artist known as Madonna. Her real name is Mrs. Ritchie, but no one will know whom you’re talking about if you refer to her that way. “Harlot” will likely earn you some topic recognition, though.

This video is fairly innocent, for Mrs. Ritchie’s typical fare. The worst is her film “Body of Evidence,” in which the harlot displays flagrant nudity; also, the unspeakably depraved “Justify My Love,” a video which single-handedly created hundreds of sexually-confused Sodomites when MTV foolishly aired it in 1992. Hermaphrodism, bestiality, sado-masochism, and fornication are typical day’s work for this unspeakably, insufferably deranged strumpet.

This woman’s antics have long grated against the American Christian conscience. The fact that she’s chosen to call herself “Madonna” only adds blasphemy to her long list of iniquities.

Luckily for “Madonna”, she lives in Europe now. Her fellow Atheist moonbats will shield her from retribution after the Christian victory in 2008, but not for long. God will not suffer His authority to be flaunted forever, and one who sullies the name of the Virgin Mary by associating it with prostitution is begging Heaven to destroy them.

I pray that Britain will relinquish “Madonna” (Mrs. Ritchie)to the proper authorities when the time is ripe. Failure to do so could justify stern countermeasures, up to and including the use of military force to take this woman by force to her native land for criminal prosecution. Crimes against Christianity are not to be tolerated, even if the abettors seek sanctuary amongst our friends and allies.

Rush Limbaugh: Conspiracy Theorist?

January 7, 2008

Rush Limbaugh - The KissIt’s getting harder and harder to listen to Rush Limbaugh. He wears his anti-Huckabee anti-evangelical bias on his sleeve lately and I just don’t get it. Rush used to represent the heart and soul of conservatives, but more and more he just represents the GOP elite.

Today he came up with a conspiracy theory that’s wacky at best. Perhaps he’s a Ron Paul supporter at heart.

“I think I know what is happening here, Mr. Snerdley, who is the official screener of calls here today. I think that the Huckabee campaign has finally figured it out. I think that we’ve got behind-the-scenes advisors in some cases calling in here, and advisors are having some of their people call in here.”

You catch that? It’s not actual Rush fans and Huckabee supporters calling in and voicing their concern about Rush sandbagging their preferred candidate. It’s got to be the campaign. This is black helicopter Alex Jones territory.

“I’m not getting inundated here from the Ron Paul crowd; I’m not getting inundated from the McCain crowd, or by the McCain crowd. If you Hucksters think that I have been a little unfair and a little bit hard on Governor Huckabee, I’m equally as hard on Senator McCain, but we’re not hearing from any of his people.”

Rush LimbaughA little unfair? A little hard on Huck? Oh give me a break! You’ve spent precious hours of your airtime literally blasting the former Arkansas Governor. No wonder supporters are calling in to cry foul.

Let’s take a quick looksee at the definition of the word “huckster,” shall we?

a person who employs showy methods to effect a sale, win votes, etc.: the crass methods of political hucksters.

Still wonder why people are reacting to the unfair insults you make?

“I really think here that what’s happening is sort of an organized campaign from the Huckabee people here to try to get to the program and refute what I’m saying. I’ve talked about Rudy and social issues as well as Romney and some of his flip-flops in these things.”

And you’re surprised nobody’s calling in about Rudy and Romney? There’s no dispute there, is there? You’ve been sigularly nasty to Mike Huckabee, who’s run a positive campaign. That’s why people are honestly reacting. It’s not a conspiracy, El Rushbo. It’s just not.

And Rush carefully and cleverly offers a false choice. Hey, evangelicals, throw away your vote on a guy who’s hardly even interested in running for President.

“My question for you evangelicals is this. If you’re looking for a real conservative, why are you supporting Huckabee? He’s completely discredited himself. What about Fred Thompson? If you’re looking for a real conservative.”

Who do you represent this campaign season, Rush? It isn’t conservatives and it isn’t your listeners and it isn’t the Republican base who actually and honestly support Huckabee. Why are you doing this? Who’s paying you? You’re going beyond ridiculous to sabotage Huck’s campaign. Why?

Unleash the Hounds of Rush

December 21, 2007

Rush LimbaughMarc Ambinder seems to have created quite the little tempest in a teapot. He quoted an unnamed “Huckabee ally” (whatever that means) attacking El Rushbo.

“Honestly, because Rush doesn’t think for himself. That’s not necessarily a slap because he’s not paid to be a thinker—he’s an entertainer. I can’t remember the last time that he has veered from the talking points from the DC/Manhattan chattering class. If they were praising Huckabee, he would be too.”

Yikes. Lib talking points. But it gets worse, much worse.

“Also, I have to think that he’s dying to have Hillary in the White House. Bill Clinton made Rush a megastar. Having another Clinton back in power would make him the Leading Voice of the Opposition once again.”

These are not the words of a Limbaugh fan, or even a person that has a drop of respect for decades of excellence in broadcasting. This is deliberate taunting. And Rush, naturally, was not amused. Neither was Michelle Malkin. Neither was anybody.

But something tells me they’ve been had, or are just happy to have a reason to pound Huck. Consider this for a moment: how would attacking the most powerful voice of conservatism in the media benefit Huckabee? Yeah, exactly. It wouldn’t. It never would. It couldn’t in any possible scenario. Something smells like a bit fat lib rat. This only benefits Huck’s rivals. So what’s up here?

SaboteurMarc Ambinder is refusing to name this “Huckabee ally,” but this person, if he or she exists, doesn’t work for the Huckabee campaign. So the accusations about Huckabee or his campaign attacking Limbaugh (“bringing a water pistol to a knife fight” as Ed Morrissey put it) are 100% false.

But it made for some good radio this morning, and gave Rush a good reason to attack candidate Huckabee. But I wonder if this was really a “Huckabee ally” and not an “anyone but Huckabee ally.”

Because “a prominent DC-based Huckabee ally” would know better than attacking Rush Limbaugh. In fact it would never have crossed the mind of such a person, especially if he or she knew that those poorly chosen words would be made public. Unless of course, the whole point was to encourage a Huckabee pre-Christmas weekend beatdown. Merry Christmas, Mike!

The meme clearly being sent is “Huck is a liberal.” Only a liberal would spout lib talking points on the record, while simultaneously kicking Limbaugh.

And in the end, Ambinder was used to create the story, rather than to report the story. Nice job, anonymous ally of some unnamed candidate. Slimy, but well done.

In any case, I hope everyone has a wonderful Christmas. May God also fill your next year, 2008, with blessings.

Update: Rick Moran piles onSigh.