American Power: Search results for troll rights

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query troll rights. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, August 26, 2010

VIDEO: Michelle Malkin Slams Progressives on Muslim Cabbie Attack — Heads Explode at 'Think Progress'

I caught Michelle on Fox & Friends this morning. Awesome commentary on the radical leftists who couldn't leap fast enough at the chance to smear the "evil" right-wing for the attack on the cabbie.

She's also got a post up, "Left: The NYC Muslim cabbie stabbing was right-wing ISLAMOPHOBIA!…oh, wait a minute…"

And apparently Michelle's struck a nerve. Think Progress is all up in arms, to say nothing of the vile commenters there. The second and third set of comments begin at #37 and #49:

eyeswideopen1 says:

Petty doesn’t begin to describe this little food fight you guys are having with Faux. Who gives a flying f**k what commenters post.
The nutjobs on the right wing sites say things 10 times as bad!
August 26th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Badmoodman says:

Malkin Indicts TP For Our Commenters, But Disclaims ‘All Liability’ From Her Own Blog’s Comments
– - Wingnuts aren’t very clear on the concept of free speech rights. I’m sure Malkin approves of the racist and bigoted troll comments though.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:54 am
jbrantow says:

malkin, the hypocritical hate spewing anchor baby dares to call out anyone jumping to conclusions. She’s pathetic.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:54 am
F**k the Army (brought to you by the US Army) says:

Malkin;
find a teabagger, and teabag him liberally.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:54 am

******

Creeping Death says:

So some right wing wacko finds out a cab driver is Muslim, so he slashes the cab drivers throat and in Malkin’s twisted little mind the real story is the commentary at a progressive web site?
What if a left wing wacko who happened to be a Muslim found out a cab driver was a Christian and slashed his throat, would Malkin than say that the real story is the commentary at a conservative web site?
Folks, if Malkin’s comment doesn’t show you where this country is heading, if the republicans get back in charge, nothing will.
I am actually shocked by her moronic commentary.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:13 am
bizarrobrain (brought to you by The Citadel of Satanic Kitten Worship and Tidy Cat) says:

Malkin Indicts TP For Our Commenters, But Disclaims ‘All Liability’ From Her Own Blog’s Comments
–
Sure several of us (myself included jumped to conclusions) but considering the rhetoric from Malkin’s side it was a very easy thing to do.
Though I find it pathetic that she chooses to nitpick our comments and ignores stuff like this on her own blog. This is from the article that TP linked to:
On August 25th, 2010 at 5:51 pm, Flyoverman said:
If they build it there will be blood.
[T]he bilge spewing commenters at ThinkProgress immediately indicted Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and yes, right here it says, “Thanks Fox.”
–
I do believe Limbaugh, Beck and Gingrich we’re only mentioned by maybe three of the regulars, so thanks for pointing that out and it’s sad that you chose to ignore both the serious posters who were condemning the irrational bigotry coming from your side as well as the bigotry coming from pseudo-conservative trolls who were using terms like “muzz” to paint all Muslims as extremists.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:13 am
dasm says:

Malkin somehow misses the real point: Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, etc. actually ARE inciting hatred towards Muslims (& others)with inflamed rhetoric, lies, exaggerations, & personal attacks. They deserve to be called on it. This is their/her way of absolving themselves of ALL responsibility for the hatred & racism & violence they promote. All their vicious lies & smears are recorded, but still they deny, deny, deny. And, of course, attack others who mention it.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:14 am

*******

toonces (infinity plus one) says:

Hey Michelle,
…………………./´¯/)
………………..,/¯../
………………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(’(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\…
August 26th, 2010 at 11:23 am
IgnoranceIsNotBliss says:

I do not own my own comments and I expressly disclaim any and all liability that may result from them. By commenting on my site, I do not agree that I will retain all ownership rights in what I post here and that I will relieve myself from any and all liability that may result from those postings.
New conmmenting policy for the right wing.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Leaving aside her lack of decency and hypocrisy on the issue of comments on her blog, how can she look into the camera and say that the aggressive rhetoric the Right has been putting on the news over the NYC Mosque story had nothing to do with this? I mean, when you continually use incendiary rhetoric and someone finally starts a fire, how can you feel shocked when people connect the dots?
August 26th, 2010 at 11:25 am
radpat_insurgent says:

I swear I have crossed paths with MM while living and working in Pattaya, Thailand a few years ago, if you know what I mean?
August 26th, 2010 at 11:28 am
susancarrie says:

So, she gets twitchy when the chickens of their hatemongering start coming home to roost, mmmm?
Pass the bilge, TP, and keep it coming. It’s one of the best ways we have for human decency to prevail in this poor, whipsawed country. We can do it… when push comes to shove, THERE ARE STILL A LOT MORE OF US THAN OF THEM!
We just have to stop bickering, or feeling sorry for ourselves because our pet idea has been bypassed or not fully implemented, or becoming so sickened by the whole mess that we disassociate. We have to stay alert, and to prevail, unless we want to wake up some morning in THEIR world…
August 26th, 2010 at 11:28 am

Bob, Teabaggers Are Terrorists, wurst says:

Hi Michelle, Do you know what your fans do while they watch you on their computers? They turn down the sound, dim the lights, and tug on their pimple covered puds until their moans attracts the attention of their mothers.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Xisithrus says:

does malkin understand that many of the people she is appeasing dont think she should be an american citizen?
August 26th, 2010 at 11:32 am
toonces (infinity plus one) says:

So much hate in such a tiny package. Very ugly, indeed.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:33 am
doc_halidai says:

Definition: malkin
1. an untidy woman; slattern.
2. a scarecrow, ragged puppet, or grotesque effigy.
August 26th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
MCMetal says:

Piss off , Michelle Mentalcase , you stupid little chipmunk ….
August 26th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Biot says:

What all the knowledgeable people said…
August 26th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
pags2 a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chicago Democratic Party says:

It is gratifying that TP angers Malkin. Let’s keep up the good work and see who else at Fox we can annoy. If we are lucky it will be Beck.
August 26th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

pags2 a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chicago Democratic Party says:

I would add to my comments that we should be more judicious in our posts so that Malkin cannot point to shrill comments and name calling on the blog. Otherwise it is easy to characterize TP by the worst posts.
August 26th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
tarazan says:

Malkin is another copy of Ann Coulter.
They both make their living attacking others, and write worthless books.
Malkin is a hate writing specialist, just like Coulter.
I remember when Malkin accused Rachael Ray two years ago of being a Palestinians sympathizer ,and went further to suggest that Rachael is a terrorist sympathizer for wearing a Kaufya scar.
Something toursits buy when they go to the Middle East as a souvenir,and can be bought in many Middle Eastern shops in America.
Instead of blaming the existing Muslims hate euphoria which started by exreme Right wing elements,she instead blaming TP commenters.
The attack on Cab driver in city of NY was a result of relentless attacks on Muslims for over two months supported by networks like Fox and others,and by racist politicians like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin who were fueling hate.
If Malkin and her Fox network buddies cannot see the link between their hate, racism selling, and the attack on cab driver, then something indeed is wrong with their thinking.
I don’t care if the attacker is Tea Party member or not..but I know that he was motivated by the climate created by the people Malkin is defending like Gingrich,Limbuagh and yes Fox.
Fox might not have told this guy to go and attack the driver, but Fox has been telling people nationwide for months that by allowing Muslims to build their center you are allowing them to take over your country,not to forget all the scare about Sharia law and rewarding Bin Ladin…etc..etc.
Gingrich said using Cordoba’s name symbolizes conquesring of this country.
Malkin is trying to look innocent,but we got here by the words and work of these hate-mongers,who are trying to deflect accusations of having their hands full of all of this hate-mongering campaign against Mulsims.
August 26th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
passionate centrist says:
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.

I would add to my comments that we should be more judicious in our posts so that Malkin cannot point to shrill comments and name calling on the blog. Otherwise it is easy to characterize TP by the worst posts.
Exactly. Great comment, pags 2.
August 26th, 2010 at 1:30 pm

Cats r Flyfishn (Just Another Day on Earth) says:

If Michelle Malkin is getting her pantyhose in a knot over TP bloggers, then we must be doing something right.
August 26th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
belaccifer lacca says:

passionate centrist says:
You don’t believe the inflated rhetoric of the right on this issue contributed to this attack?
Okay, I do…
Take a gander at this:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008110007
Thoughts? Why is Michelle pushing a falsehood?
August 26th, 2010 at 1:47 pm

Leftside Annie - brought to you by FOX Pasteurized Process Newsproduct says:

Oh, and hey, Michelle? If you’re reading this, you can kiss my progressive lefty ASS.
Buh-bye.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
QXXIX says:

Fox News = Ministry of Truth
August 26th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Chicano2ndFightingTerrorismSince1492 says:

Hey Michelle, you ugly, self-hating Filipina, kiss my brown a$$.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Virtual Pebble (The Revolution will NOT be Televised) says:

This actually does a disservice and is disrespectful of all the working girls and ho’s who were around Subic Bay/Cubi Point and Clark. They were at least honest about what they were doing and what they were there for, while Malkin seems to have come down on the side of being the worst kind of American – some kind of bigoted, mean-spirited twerp.
August 26th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

Monday, June 17, 2013

The Other McCain Has Now Banned Bill Schmalfeldt From Posting

That's at Hogewash, "Is #BillSchmalfeldt Appealing?"

And linked there is R.S. McCain, "Imaginary ‘Rights’ You Don’t Have, You Sad and Disgusting Troll, Bill Schmalfeldt."

Yeah, don't let those f-kers use your own comments to harass you.

Asshole leftist trolls.

PREVIOUSLY: "Freedom to Blog Update: June 15, 2013."

Sunday, September 9, 2012

The View From the Other Side: 'Anger and Denial' On the 'Wingnut Right'

Here's my previous entry, "A Two-Point Change in the Polls is Not a 'Bounce' — Especially With the Undercover Media Cognoscenti in the Tank."

I'm sure folks might quibble here and there with the analysis, but the fact is the election's been basically deadlocked for months. And while conservatives would love to see Mitt Romney holding a huge lead in the polls, it just ain't happening. What explains this? The country is nearly evenly divided, of course. Barack Obama remains popular among left-leaning voters (who give him the benefit of the doubt) and by reasonably objective indicators the mainstream press has been harder on Mitt Romney than it has on the incumbent (I could cite numerous media attacks on Romney, and untold numbers of underreported negative stories on Obama, but no need, since partisans will believe what they want to believe).

That said, I don't think the much dreaded "wingnut" right of the Republican coalition is inventing conspiracy theories as to why Obama remains competitive. And thus it's infinitely intriguing to see the left's response to John Hinderaker's piece, cited at my essay above, "Why Is This Election Close?" (at Memeorandum). Read the Hinderaker essay before some of the radical responses below. What amazes me is how dramatically divergent are the two sides. And also interesting is the caricatures that progressives use to describe the reviled "wingnuts," that, and the left's cocoon of psychological displacement and self-delusion.

Here's Mark Kleiman, for example, "From Denial to Anger: wingnuts v. the American people":

I’m always happy to see people dealing with reality, even if they do so badly. So it’s good to see a faction of the right-wing commentariat pivot from pretending that Clint Eastwood gave a great speech and the Democrats had a bad convention – while explaining that the polling results showing otherwise are rigged – to trying to figure out why their guy is losing an election they thought was a tap-in, and still think should by rights be a tap-in. They’ve moved on from Denial to Anger.

There are links to both Power Line and National Review at that entry, but again, it's the perception of reality that's striking. So to clarify: Eastwood didn't give a great speech, although he pushed just enough of the right buttons to have a huge impact; the Democrats didn't have a "bad convention," perhaps, but only if one ignores the completely FUBAR voice vote on God and Religion, the lies DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told to deny her party's failures, and the stream of far-left wing activists and party hacks spouting hateful attacks on Republicans with nary a mention of the administration's failed policies. But again, it's all in the perceptions.

But checking further around the horn, what do we find?

Well, Booman Tribune's Martin Longman, who I noted yesterday lives truly in an alternative universe, has this, "Stupid Republicans":

It would be hard to exaggerate Assrocket's stupidity. If he believes anything he's saying, he's an idiot. I wonder whether his readers will punish him for being such a bad prognosticator, or not. Anyone who has predicted that not only would Mitt Romney win this election, but win it in convincing fashion, obviously cannot even figure out how to use an Electoral College calculator. Assrocket should know that the Democrats have a solid 247 Electoral College base. And if the Dems don't totally screw things up, they probably will enter the 2016 cycle with a solid base in excess of the 270 Electoral College majority required to win.

It is possible for Mitt Romney to win, but not by more than 291 votes, and that is not a decisive margin. You can look back at 2004 and see that as pretty much the best the modern Republican Party can do.

Stupid is as stupid does, I guess. It's not like Democrats have been winning landslide presidential elections, in recent decades, and that's if the Democrats even won. (And demography is not necessarily destiny, since people can change voting preferences, especially during an economic depression.) All that matters is 270-to-win, in any case, so this blather about how large an electoral vote is meaningless. All Romney has to do is win a few states that Obama took in 2008, especially Ohio and Florida, and things could be over for the Democrats. While Longman can act like an all-knowing political Solon, dissing Republicans as "stupid," President Obama doesn't have the luxury of hubris, and has in fact been shitting bricks according to some reports. (And for the record, keep Booman Tribune in mind if you're thinking about ramming a Republican victory down progressive throats after November 6.)

Now, how about over at No More Mr. Nice Blog, a colleague of Booman, "WHAT REPUBLICANS THINK OF AMERICA":

Verbatim John Hinderaker, from a Power Line post titled "Why Is This Election Close?":

I am afraid the problem in this year's race is economic self-interest: we are perilously close to the point where 50% of our population cares more about the money it gets (or expects to get) from government than about the well-being of the nation as a whole. Throw in a few confused students, pro-abortion fanatics, etc., and you have a Democratic majority.
Shorter Hinderaker:

Hey, American people, we think you're a bunch of leeches, bomb-throwers, and morons. Vote for us!
The mask is really off here: If you look forward to getting Social Security and Medicare benefits, or unemployment benefits if you lose your job, or Pell grants if you want to go to college, you're contemptible. You're not American. Sink-or-swim is the American way.

Oh boy!

Yeah, the mask is really off --- the welfare entitlement state! Steve M. practices the simple caricature I mentioned above. Now we could quibble with Hinderaker's phrasing, but the fact remains that, yes, 50 percent of Americans are receiving income from some kind of federal transfer program, and that fact weighs on the historic tradition of individualism and self-sufficiency in American politics. The question is whether all of those receiving benefits of some sort, especially among those who aren't Social Security retirees, consider this a lifelong dole with little care about returning to gainful employment of some sort. There's certainly no lack of evidence that large numbers of the Democrat base expect long-term welfare handouts, and these slackers in fact lovingly refer to the handouts as "Obama bucks." Other examples abound (remember Peggy Joseph upon the election of "The One"). So let's be honest: The average working wage-earner paying substantial portions of his or her income in taxes has all the right to be concerned about the basic moral "well-being of the nation as a whole" when it comes to hard work and personal responsibility. That's the kind of sweat that built this country, not the ever growing welfare state entitlement dole that Democrats will defend to the death.

Okay, how about over at Barbara "Mahablog" O'Brien, "Obama Pulling Away?":

The Right is genuinely baffled as to why their guy isn’t winning by a mile. Those of you with a morbid fascination with psycho-political pathology might get a kick out of some of their arguments today — see Power Tool John and Andrew McCarthy, for example. It’s beginning to dawn on them that they could lose. They are still hopeful that some reservoir of undecided voters will break to Romney at the last minute, but now they are entering the second-guessing phase. Have they been too “conservative,” or not “conservative” enough?

Although we may never solve the mystery of why Mitt Romney wants to be President, I am getting the impression that he, and much of the rest of the Right, thought this election would be easily winnable. All they had to do was present a candidate who looks like he could play a President on teevee, and all those folks disappointed in President Obama would flock to him. And it isn’t happening. And they are so lost inside their own echo chamber they have no idea why.

What I think is that the Democratic convention reflected what the electorate actually thinks and feels right now, and the Republicans missed that by a mile. The cut taxes/deregulate to create prosperity gag is old, and tired, and no one outside the rightie echo chamber believes it any more. And every local, state, and national candidate for office for the past several election cycles has been promising jobs, jobs, jobs, and the promises don’t cut it. Without a credible, clearly articulated plan, they might as well promise fairy dust and unicorns.

While I can't speak for "every local, state, and national candidate" running for office this year, the fact is that it was President Obama's speech that was hammered by people on the left for being extremely short on specifics and vision. Indeed, far-left blogger Kevin Drum dissed Obama for "phoning it in." And Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker, clearly no friend of the GOP ticket, hammered Obama's speech, noting that "There’s still plenty of time left for Obama to live up to his promise to tell us the truth. Let’s hope we hear a lot more detail in the weeks ahead about what he really means when he implores us 'forward'." So again, it's all about perception, and if Barbara O'Brien wants to attack conservatives as stuck in the echo chamber bubble, she might first step outside herself and draw a deep breath of reality.

Alright, I'm just getting started here! Let's see what Zandar the Stupid's got up his sleeves, "Your Insanity Is Exquisite, Sir":

John Hinderaker's clean break with political reality is so snowflake-intricate, so crystalline perfect in its construction, that part of me feels bad stomping all over the thing like a drunken brontosaurus with a restless leg syndrome having a panic attack during an earthquake. I mean, it takes serious and sustained, considerable effort to build a Fortress of Denial like this, each brick lovingly collected from the fetid swamps of internet bullshit that he resides in, much like Yoda's Dagobah home (only without all the personable rustic charm) and held in the hefty walls by the mortar of utter cluelessness...

Zandar is one of those progressives who virtually speaks a foreign language decipherable almost exclusively to the scummiest dirtbag trolls of the progressive fever swamps. Folks can continue reading Zandar the Stupid at the link. He hasn't debunked Hinderaker so much as pissed on him. And as is the case with political blogging, Zandar eschews any self-reflection as to the weaknesses of his side. As mentioned, Team Obama is worried about reelection. The race is tight and things could still go against the Democrats. All this left-wing victory stomping is badly premature at this point, and exceedingly self-absorbed, as if that needed to be pointed out.

Now, last but not least, check out the diarist "Armando" at Daily Kos, "Wingnuts argue conservatism being failed: by the American People." The post is mostly a cut-and-paste from some of the bloggers I've cited here already, but the kicker is the Ayn Rand theme with the picture of the Objectivist philosopher at the entry. I don't actually hear too many folks on the right quoting Ayn Rand to make the case against Obama. There's been a resurgence of her work, no doubt, and we had some buzz a few years back about people "going Galt," but the fact is veep-nominee Paul Ryan has renounced Rand's theories as atheist and I can't think of a single mainstream Republican who wants to abandon the basic outlines of the safety net as we have it today. What folks like Ryan want to do is put that safety net on sure footing. They want to modernize the American welfare state for a society and post-industrial economy that bear little resemblance to the American economy and demographics of the Great Depression and New Deal. It's the Democrats who are stuck in a time warp. It's the denizens of the fevered leftist redoubts who're in denial about what it's going to take to revitalize the country, put our economy on sound footing, and get people back to work (and off the dole). And on that note, and in detail, don't miss Walter Russell Mead, "Noise vs. Knowledge: America’s Longest Presidential Campaign."

The Democrats offered virtually nothing of substance at the convention in Charlotte. And the president in particular was just going through the motions, giving what many panned as a barely warmed-over State-of-the-Union leftover address.

The progressives used to call themselves "the reality-based community." And some still do, I'm sure. The problem is the left's reality is not the objective reality that people usually refer to when they speak of realistic-based, reality-driven thinking. Is Mitt Romney going to win? Who knows? But he's certainly not out of the ball game, not by a long shot. And by implication, President Obama's not pulling away. I laid out how I felt at my earlier essay on Nate Silver and the purported Democrat convention bounce. My hunch at this point is that Obama has a very good chance to win, but it could be a squeaker, cobbling together just enough of his 2008 electoral coalition to go over the top. And to be really accurate here I'd need to go back and look at the state level data, for example, in Florida (where Obama holds a 1.7 percent lead in the RCP average) and Ohio (where Obama holds a 1.5 percent lead in the RCP average); and we'd have to factor in other things like campaign spending, and GOTV efforts, and voter enthusiasm (see Charlie Cook on the latter, "Obama’s Enthusiasm Deficit Could Soon Haunt Him"). Consider it basically a dead heat. Or at least consider the reality that it could be a dead heat and that Team Obama's freaking out that it's a dead heat, and that "The One" could well be packing his bags for a permanent golf vacation come January.

So there you go. Neither side needs to be over-confident at this point, but if I were a concern troll I'd warn the progressives not to get too cocky.

RELATED: See Jennifer Rubin, "Whistling past the graveyard at the Democratic convention."

CARTOON CREDIT: Dr. Sanity, "DENIAL, DENIAL, AND STILL MORE DENIAL!"

Saturday, July 11, 2015

Open-Borders Leftists Push to Oust Donald Trump from Phoenix Convention Center

At the video is far left-wing nut job Steve Gallardo, a member of the Board of Supervisors for Maricopa County. He's pretty angry about this, a fever swamp leftist troll, in fact.

And see the Arizona Republic, "Phoenix council members slam Trump visit":

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton and several City Council members are denouncing Donald Trump's Arizona campaign visit, with some members arguing the event shouldn't be held at the Phoenix Convention Center.

Stanton and Councilmembers Michael Nowakowski, Daniel Valenzuela and Kate Gallego, all Democrats, were the first to speak publicly on Trump's planned speech.

They said they don't agree with the Republican presidential candidate's views and think his remarks on illegal immigrants have been "ignorant," "racially inflammatory" and "disgusting."

But Stanton said the city will not interfere with plans for the Trump event to be held at the taxpayer-funded Phoenix Convention Center.

Trump, who has been criticized for calling some undocumented immigrants rapists and criminals, is set to speak on immigration at 2 p.m. Saturday at the Convention Center's North Ballroom. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio also is slated to speak.

The event was originally scheduled for the Arizona Biltmore, but the location shifted to the downtown Phoenix venue to accommodate the thousands who are expected to attend, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said.

In a statement released this week, Valenzuela said the event should be held elsewhere.

"Mr. Trump certainly has a First Amendment right to bluster as much as he wants, and even to pander to our worst instincts in a sad attempt to win votes at the expense of hard-working, honorable, law-abiding Latinos," Valenzuela said.

"However, we should draw the line at allowing him to use the Phoenix Convention Center — a public building funded by all of our taxpayers' dollars — to stage his hate-filled circus."

Gallego also disapproved of Trump's visit, suggesting unhappy residents protest the event.

"It is my hope and prayer that Phoenicians join me in exercising our First Amendment rights to let Mr. Trump know that the residents of Phoenix find his views repugnant," she said in a statement Thursday. "Just because the lawyers say we can't turn him away doesn't mean he's welcome."

Stanton, also in a released statement, said, "Mr. Trump has a right under the First Amendment to make absurd and embarrassing statements, and the city of Phoenix will not attempt to censor political speech based on content.

"The Convention Center is a public facility and open to everyone willing to pay for it — including Mr. Trump."

Councilman Bill Gates, a Republican, said Trump's views "do not reflect the majority of Arizonans and the majority of Arizona Republicans." He agreed with Stanton, saying the city does not prohibit any use of the center because of political ideology.

Added Nowakowski in a separate statement: "I support our First Amendment right to free speech and as a city, we cannot discriminate based on content or person ... Phoenix will not be tarnished by this event."

Councilwoman Thelda Williams agreed that Phoenix can't block Trump from speaking at the convention center.

"I think all the presidential candidates are welcome to come say their piece so people have an opportunity to hear what they have to say and make up their own minds," she said.

Another case where anti-speech leftists just can't stand the First Amendment, and funny how there's nothing they can do about it. The f-king losers.

PREVIOUSLY: "Donald Trump Speaks in Beverly Hills: Blasts Illegal Alien Criminals, Supports Victims' Families (VIDEO)."

Friday, July 19, 2013

President Obama's Comments on #TrayvonMartin and Being Black in America

I've watched the entire clip and I think it's good to recognize that the president was sincere in his desire to add something meaningful to the discussion of the Zimmerman verdict and the controversial issues of race in America that we've been having. I'm not particularly impressed with his comments, especially those about racial profiling, but since I've often in the past criticized Obama for not using the bully pulpit to speak about the crisis of black America I've got to give at least mini props to his later comments about using the powers of his office to convene resources for our vulnerable black youth across the nation. As a second term president with declining capital, this could be one of the most important legacies of his entire time in office. And notice how the president blew off talk of grand new federal programs to address such concerns. That's both a recognition that he wouldn't get much done legislatively as well as a statement on the need to increase private social capital in distressed communities outside the purview of government. I think that's important.

Other than that, like I said, there's really not much here for me. Check Ace of Spades HQ's comments, for example, where he mentions that mostly Obama speaks in "Notional Sentences, that is to say, assemblages of words which mirror the structure and form of a content- and idea-conveying sentence but which actually contain far less than the sum of their word-parts." That's true, so again mostly we're dealing with symbolism rather than action. I don't even expect much follow through on that bit about helping black youth. Mostly it's just fair enough to note that the man has spoken and I expect a lot of inner city folks can take that to heart.

In any case, here's the New York Times' piece, "In Wake of Zimmerman Verdict, Obama Makes Extensive Statement on Race in America" (at Memeorandum).

I'm going to troll around for awhile and will update with additional reactions. Obama conceded, at the earlier part of the speech, that it's not likely that federal civil rights charges will be brought against George Zimmerman, so that's not likely to go over well with the hardline race grievance monsters on the Democrat race plantation, but we'll see.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Raphael Golb Created 82 Sock Puppets, Harassed Scholars Who Ignored His Father's Work, and Was Charged With 51 Counts of Identity Theft, Aggravated Harassment, Criminal Impersonation, Forgery and Unauthorized Computer Use at NYU

This is an amazing story, and especially relevant, consider the left's depraved war of lawfare and intimidation against conservatives. The dude was pissed off that scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls --- the Dead Sea Scrolls! --- were ignoring his dad's scholarly contributions so he waged a criminally-obsessed online jihad against them. Sounds familiar, I know.

See the New York Times, "Online Battle Over Sacred Scrolls, Real-World Consequences":

Between 2006 and 2009, he created more than 80 online aliases to advance his father’s views about the Dead Sea Scrolls against what he saw as a concerted effort to exclude them. Along the way, according to a jury and a panel of appellate court judges, he crossed from engaging in academic debate to committing a crime.

What he accomplished through this manner of intellectual warfare is, like the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, a topic on which opinion is passionately diverse, with no shortage of bad blood.

“This has nothing to do with scholarly debate,” said Lawrence H. Schiffman, vice provost of Yeshiva University and a widely published authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls, who became the prime target of Mr. Golb’s online activities. “It has to do with criminal activity.

“Fraud, impersonation and harassment are criminal matters,” he continued. “This was actually designed to literally end my career.”

Mr. Golb’s father, Norman Golb, 85, a professor of Jewish History and Civilization at the University of Chicago, placed the wrong squarely on the other side. “The D.A. took a scholarly quarrel and makes a case against Raphael Golb and not against what those other people are doing, which was worse,” he said. “The vindictiveness, the anger, the ugliness, that’s O.K. because it comes from the other side.” ...

*****

In 2006 and 2007, when several American museums announced exhibits of the scrolls, Raphael Golb was incensed that his father’s theory had not been acknowledged in the shows. “They teach scorn for my father,” Mr. Golb said, accusing rival academics of “indoctrinating students in a culture of hatred.”

“This is a system where they suppress people by excluding them,” he added.

At the time, the younger Mr. Golb was researching a book about French secularism and working just enough as a real estate lawyer to pay his bills. He also received money from his parents. The Internet offered ways for him to argue his father’s case. He wouldn’t have to use his real name, which others “would simply use to smear my father,” he said. Instead, he could post under an alias — or four, five or six. He began posting comments on the museums’ Web sites, complaining that the exhibits were one-sided.

He started a blog; then another and another, each under a different name. The aliases begot other aliases, known on the Internet as sock puppets: 20, 40, 60, 80. The sock puppets debated with other posters, each time linking to other sock puppets to support their arguments, creating the impression of an army of engaged scholars espousing Norman Golb’s ideas. Using the alias Charles Gadda (from the Italian writer Carlo Emilio Gadda), Raphael Golb published articles on the citizen news Web site NowPublic and linked to them in comments and blog posts written under other aliases. The writings all championed Norman Golb as an honest scholar bucking a well-financed, self-serving conspiracy.

He acted as an online troll, stirring up controversy. “Was it appropriate for a scientific institution to allow a group of Christian academics to impose their agenda on an exhibit of ancient documents taking place under its auspices?” he asked of an exhibit at the San Diego Natural History Museum, in an Oct. 6, 2007, article. That article, he said, drew 16,000 views.

“They saw this happening and they were furious, because I was sabotaging their Internet campaign,” Raphael Golb said of the museums. His father’s rivals, he suspected, used sock puppets to answer his comments.

“It became a kind of war,” he said. “It was very ugly. But I was glad it was happening. I was like, this is great. This draws more attention to my father’s work.” To a family member he wrote, “they are faced with a dedicated, in-the-know adversary who is out to get them, and there’s simply nothing they can do about it.”

One of Mr. Golb’s targets was a graduate student named Robert R. Cargill, who created a virtual tour of Qumran for the San Diego museum.

Norman Golb posted an article on the Web site of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago complaining that the film’s script ignored his theory.

Raphael Golb went further, sending pseudonymous e-mails to Mr. Cargill’s professors at U.C.L.A.

“I said this person should be compelled to answer the published criticisms of his work at his Ph.D. defense,” Raphael Golb said. Some of the e-mail messages suggested that Mr. Cargill, who describes himself as agnostic, was a fundamentalist Christian and an anti-Semite.

Mr. Cargill, who is now 39 and an assistant professor of classics and religious studies at the University of Iowa, remembered Mr. Golb’s campaign as a frontal assault meant to thwart his career.

“Any time someone hears the name Robert Cargill, they hear, he’s anti-Semitic,” Mr. Cargill said. “Let’s say I’m applying for a job and I’m in a pool of 10 finalists. When they do background checking, they see this Cargill looks like he’s being criticized as anti-Semitic. We don’t know if it’s legitimate, but it’s safer to go with someone else.”

The e-mails kept coming. According to papers filed by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, from June 2007 to June 2009, Mr. Golb’s aliases Steve Frankel, Carlo Gadda, Don Matthews, David Kaplan, Emily Kaufman, Jesse Friedman and Robert Dworkin sent dozens of e-mails to hundreds of people at U.C.L.A., all attacking Mr. Cargill. “The volume of defendant’s alias creation,” the court papers read, “and his planning with others, speaks to the deliberate intent in conducting defendant’s operation.”

Mr. Cargill fought back. A typical e-mail message or blog post has an Internet protocol address that identifies the computer used to create it. Using simple software that identified the I.P. addresses, he traced the e-mails and blog posts of 82 aliases to the same few computers. Beneath one of Mr. Golb’s pseudonymous comments, he posted a message, using the pseudonym Raphael Joel, a combination of Mr. Golb’s first name and his brother’s. The message was: We know who you are....

*****

Raphael Golb was naked and asleep when police officers came to his apartment early on the morning of March 5, 2009, arresting him on 51 charges of identity theft, aggravated harassment, criminal impersonation, forgery and unauthorized use of the computers in an N.Y.U. library. He had been up all of the previous night writing comments or blog posts under his various aliases. The officers seized Mr. Golb’s computers and led him handcuffed from his building. Waiving his rights to a lawyer and to remain silent, Mr. Gold denied sending any bogus e-mail messages, telling the investigators that Dr. Schiffman had filed a false complaint “out of maliciousness toward my father.” He added, “I find the guy a bit nauseating, to tell the truth.”

Mr. Golb later rejected a plea deal that would have kept him out of jail.

At his trial in September 2010, Mr. Golb admitted to all of his writings, but defended his use of pseudonyms as a time-honored vehicle for criticism and debate — and a staple of Internet culture. He wasn’t trying to defraud anybody or gain anything, his lawyers argued; he just wanted his father’s views represented. If he was guilty of slander or libel, his victims could sue him in civil court.

“I’m not saying anybody here acted well,” Mr. Kuby said. “I just don’t think anybody acted criminally.”

This should be interesting to some of our friends on the right, especially Robert Stacy McCain, "Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt Charged With Deranged Cyberstalking." And discussed there is Lee Stranahan, who's been quite busy of late. For example, "My Statement About Criminal Harassment Charges Against Bill Schmalfeldt." Also, "Bill Schmalfeldt’s Double Dip Harassment Part 1," and "Bill Schmalfeldt’s Creepy Obsession With Photos Of My Wife (NSFW)."

And Lee tweeted some of Schmalfeldt's deranged ravings:

Exhibit Y | breitbartunmasked.com/the-stranahans…
— Lee Stranahan (@Stranahan) February 16, 2013

And I'll tell you, I'm eternally thankful that all the Internet harassment and stalking I beat back never escalated to this level. Either way, folks should know that if you're out here standing up for decency and right, the despicable left knows no depths of viciousness, deceit and dishonor. You will fight for your life because the left will attempt to destroy you. Recall that Stranahan had to move away at one point and relocate, to protect the safety of his family. And Robert Stacy McCain did the same. It's hard out there for a righteous mofo, but remember that this Rafael Golb dude --- whether you think he's right or wrong, and I think he went overboard --- is looking at an almost certain 6 months behind bars, so be assured that when lines get crossed on the Internet --- and they do get crossed --- people go to jail.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Socialist Revolt on Health Care Stings White House

I'll tell you. One of the things that bugs me about current political discourse is the super-extended half-life of the word "liberal." American leftists aren't "liberals." And I'm not even talking about "classical liberal" ideology, which is essenally the natural rights "Lockean" liberalism of limited government constitutionalism. I just mean left-liberals as those who have long been associated with the left of the political spectrum. Normally, we'd think supporters of the Democratic Party. The usage of "liberal" and "conservative" is so institutionalized in American politics that of course we won't see changes any time soon. But those of the Democratic Party-left today are not liberals in any sense, if we take the party back to its post-WWII Truman-Kennedy roots. The point is not new, but it needs to be restated amid this long healthcare debate we're having.

I'm looking at the New York Times' piece this morning, with the headline, "Liberal Revolt on Health Care Stings White House." (Via Memeorandum.) Again, what liberals? We've got radical leftists, communists, socialists ... shoot, we'd probably find a couple anarcho-syndicalists if we rummaged through the inner recesses of the White House a bit.

Anyway, it's this whole healthcare debate that's driving everyone to teh stupid, even the Times. Sure, they get some of the particulars right, for example, in identifying Senator Bernie Sanders (below at the video) as a "self-avowed democratic socialist," but why stop there? For some reason, with the exeption of Sanders, the remainder of the "Democratic left" that's revolting against the administration, is described as liberal.

All one has to do is just troll around the netroots blogosphere enough to hear folks talking way more radically than Senator Sanders.

Note this e-mail from one of "Hammering" Jane Hamsher's readers at Firedoglake:

As Dave Johnson writes (via email):
Most other countries provide health care as a right – a core function of government. But here privateers have seized it for themselves for profit. So to maintain this, to keep taxes low for the rich and keep the profits privatized we are ordered to buy it from companies instead of having it provided as a government service. This is the battle between democracy and corporatization.

Notice that? "Privateers" and that battle between "democracy and corporatization"? This tension is also on display at Booman Tribune, "One Reason Why Democracies Fail."

Nothing in democratic theory requires economic equality. Indeed, Robert Dahl, who is perhaps the most widely cited contemporary political scientist on the foundations of democratic societies, omits socialist conceptions of equality as a key criterion for a democraty society. (See, Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics , and especially, On Democracy). This is not to say that political power in unaffected by the distribution of economic resources. It is to argue that the solution offered by radical leftists -- state socialization of the economy -- has nothing to do with increasing democratic participation. And in fact, taken to its extreme, we'd see the opposite effect: The increasing concentration of power, first in the revolutionary vanguard, and then in the communist state itself, where bureaucratic apparatchiks would concentrate power and economic resources in their hands.
This will happen if folks the "Hammering Jance" and Senator Bernie Sanders get their way. And that's why conservatives oppose the monstrosity of "democratic" healthcare reform.

Friday, November 30, 2012

Campaign for America's Future, Top Democrat Activist Group, Launches Class-Warfare Website

In a stunning embrace of political terminology normally associated with political polarization and vile anti-Americanism, top Democrat Party activists, led by long time progressive leader Robert Borosage, have launched an initiative to push economic warfare against conservatives and Republicans. Aaron Klein reports, at WND, "Democrat Operatives Launch Class-Warfare Website":

A George Soros-funded radical think tank with close ties to the Democratic Party has launched a new website urging politicians and activists to wage class warfare while hailing what it calls a new era in politics – the use of class warfare to win elections.

WageClassWar.org was launched last week by the Campaign for America’s Future, or CAF.

CAF’s co-director, Robert Borosage, explained the need for such a website.

“America’s growing diversity and its increasingly socially liberal attitudes played a big role in this election. But looking back, we are likely to see this as the first of the class warfare elections of our new Gilded Age of extreme inequality,” he wrote in a statement.

“More and more of our elections going forward will feature class warfare – only this time with the middle class fighting back. And candidates are going to have to be clear about which side they are on,” he wrote.

Continued Borosage: “In 2012, candidates who supported the economic interests of the many over the few won their elections. Populism was the voice, but economic opportunity was the message. The pundits may wring their hands, but in the future it won’t be values voters, angry white men or soccer moms that win elections. It will be class war.”

The website does not feature a mission statement and is unclear about exactly how the group will go about attempting to wage class warfare.

The site explains how Obama’s 2012 campaign utilized class warfare and set the stage for the deployment of such tactics in future elections.

Continue reading Klein's report here.

But readers can go right to the website, which features Borosage's introductory exhortation for the progressive class-warfare agenda, "Waging Class War":

Needless to say, Obama is neither by temperament nor predilection a populist class warrior. But faced with potential defeat, he turned to what works. The depths of the Obama presidency came in the summer of 2011 after the debt ceiling debacle, in which the president was roughed up by Tea Party zealots, and emerged looking weak and ineffective.

Obama came back by deciding to stop seeking back-room compromises with people intent on destroying him and to start making his case. In the fall, he put out the American Jobs Act and stumped across the country demanding that Republicans vote on it. His standing in the polls began to rise. Then Occupy Wall Street exploded, driving America’s extreme inequality and rigged system into the debate. In December, the president embraced the frame: He traveled to Osawatomie, Kansas, revisiting a campaign stop Teddy Roosevelt had made in the first Gilded Age. He indicted the “you’re on your own” economics of Republicans while arguing that “this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class.”

In the run-up to the election, the president’s campaign employed two basic strategies. First, the president consolidated his own coalition. He defended contraception and pay equity while his campaign attacked the Republican “war on women.” He reached out to Hispanics by ending the threat of deportation for the Dream kids. He not only ended “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but also moved to embrace gay marriage. Widely described as socially liberal measures, these were also profoundly bread-and-butter concerns. Could women choose when to have children? Could Hispanic children be free to pursue the American dream? Could gay people gain the economic benefits of marriage?

At the same time, the president’s campaign made a risky but remarkably successful decision. Their opinion research showed that painting Romney as a flip-flopper had little traction, but the attacks on vulture capitalism hit home. They decided to spend big money early in such key states as Ohio on a negative ad barrage defining Romney as the heartless vulture capitalist from Bain. Both campaigns believe that Romney never recovered.

And the conclusion to Borosage's declaration of war:

More and more of our elections going forward will feature class warfare — only this time with the middle class fighting back. And candidates are going to have to be clear about which side they are on. Politicians in both parties are now hearing CEOs telling them that it is time for a deal that cuts Medicare and Social Security benefits in exchange for tax reform that lowers rates and closes loopholes. Before they take that advice, they might just want to look over their shoulders at what will be coming at them.

This is very useful, for it puts the lie to the left's own words that this president was going to heal the country's divisions and govern as a post-partisan leader amid the emergence of transcendent progressive benevolence. There have been so many lies over the last few years, but this is one of the biggest, now actually embraced by top Democrats as a badge of honor and a program to destroy the enemy.

This is also useful as a reminder of just how far left the mainstream of the Democrat Party has moved. Here's the Borosage entry at Discover the Networks:

A former New Left radical and onetime Director of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), Robert Borosage co-founded (with Roger Hickey) both the Campaign for America’s Future and the Institute for America’s Future. He also founded and currently chairs the Progressive Majority Political Action Committee, the activist arm of a political networking organization whose aim is to help elect as many leftist political leaders as possible. In addition, he is a contributing editor at The Nation magazine and a regular contributor to The American Prospect.

Borosage attended Yale Law School and earned a graduate degree in International Affairs from George Washington University. In 1974 he established the Center for National Security Studies, a civil rights / civil liberties organization that regularly accuses the CIA and the FBI of rampant abuses.

From 1979 to 1988 Borosage was Director of the Institute for Policy Studies. In 1988 he left IPS to work on Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaign, for which he served as a speechwriter and an assistant in framing responses to policy issues.

Borosage also has worked for such political figures as Senators Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer, and Carol Moseley-Braun.

In 1989 Borosage founded the Campaign for New Priorities, which called for decreased federal spending on the military and greater allocations for social welfare programs.

In 1996 Borosage and Roger Hickey co-founded the Campaign for America's Future (CAF), and three years later they established a sister organization, the Institute for America's Future (IAF).

Each year, CAF holds a “Take Back America” conference which the organization describes as “a catalyst for building the infrastructure to ensure that the voice of the progressive majority is heard.” Speaking at one such event in Los Angeles in June 2001, Borosage characterized President George W. Bush’s policies as a mélange of “tax cuts for the wealthy,” “arsenic in the water,” and “salmonella in the food”....

In a November 2002 L.A. Weekly article, The Nation editor David Corn quoted what Borosage had said backstage during a recent anti-war rally sponsored by International A.N.S.W.E.R. According to Corn, Borosage stated: "This [rally] is easy to dismiss as the radical fringe, but it holds the potential for a larger movement down the road…. History shows that protests are organized first by militant, radical fringe parties and then get taken over by more centrist voices as the movement grows. They provide a vessel for people who want to protest."

Backstage at an A.N.S.W.E.R. rally? International ANSWER is the residual protest arm of the Stalinist World Workers Party. It's been on the leading edge of the most radical left wing agitation since the early George W. Bush administration. There are all kinds of interlocking ties between groups like this and the mainstream of the Democrat Party, although President Obama and institutional Democrats have long attempted to mainstream their activities and distance themselves from the revolutionary shock troops.

Here's more background, on the founding contingents of the Campaign for America's Future:

Approximately 130 people played a role in co-founding the Campaign for America's Future (CAF) in 1996. Among these individuals were: Mary Frances Berry, Julian Bond, Heather Booth, Robert Borosage (co-founder), John Cavanagh, Richard Cloward, Jeff Cohen, Ken Cook, Peter Dreier, Barbara Ehrenreich, Betty Friedan, Todd Gitlin, Heidi Hartmann, Tom Hayden, Denis Hayes, Roger Hickey (co-founder), Patricia Ireland, Jesse Jackson, Joseph Lowery, Steve Max, Gerald McEntee, Harold Meyerson, Frances Fox Piven, Robert Reich, Mark Ritchie, Arlie Schardt, Susan Shaer, Andrew Stern, John Sweeney, and Richard Trumka. To view the full list of co-founders, click here.

It's also useful to troll around over at the CAF website, where one finds Borosage agitating on the current fiscal cliff negotiations, "The Grand Betrayal":

The battle lines are being drawn. The AFL-CIO, SEIU and AFSCME have announced labor’s opposition to cuts in entitlement programs and to continued tax cuts for the rich. Groups representing the base of the Democratic Party—from African-Americans to Latinos, women and the young—are lining up around a four-point program calling for jobs first; protecting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; letting the top-end Bush tax cuts expire; and protecting programs for the vulnerable.

Reaching no deal is preferable to a bad one that cuts entitlements. Going over the so-called fiscal cliff is perilous, but probably preferable to a bargain under the terms currently in play. With no agreement, the Bush tax cuts would expire. In January the Senate would immediately push to revive the lower rates for everyone but the top 2 percent. Republicans could vote for tax cuts, but rates at the top would rise. The automatic spending cuts would not kick in immediately (although the stock market might feel the hit quickly). But the thing to remember about failure to reach a deal before January is that Medicare, Social Security and many programs for the most vulnerable are shielded from the cuts. And the new Congress would likely act rapidly to reverse the cuts to military and domestic spending. The already faltering recovery would surely weaken, threatening the loss of more jobs. But that might force Congress to address the real crisis—jobs and growth—rather than court a ruinous austerity.

Whatever the outcome, the battle is likely to be only the first skirmish of a defining struggle over the future of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. We’ve just had what might be called the first of a new era of class-warfare elections. The plutocracy ran one of their own, on their agenda and with their money. The American people’s rejection of Mitt Romney, despite the lousy economy, demonstrated the declining appeal of the conservative, trickle-down agenda. The budget debate will draw battle lines within the Democratic Party, between the Wall Street–dominated New Democratic wing and the progressive wing fighting for the change this country desperately needs.

We are headed into a new era of upheaval. Our money-soaked politics may suffocate growing demands for change. But if Democratic legislators join the president in a grand betrayal, they may witness a powerful Tea Party movement from the left, as Republican legislators have from the right.

Well, the battle lines are being drawn alright.

But remember, as Rush Limbaugh warned, the politics of the fiscal cliff aren't really about fiscal policy. They're about destroying the Republican Party. This Wage Class War initiative just comes right out in the open with it, which is good. Let's not pretend that Americans are one country with a few minor differences on the margins. We're indeed in a political war for the survival of the America that we grew up with, one, in my lifetime, marked by decency in overcoming oppression, and in expanding political and economic opportunity to growing numbers. But progressives don't care about any of that. They have been taken over by the most radical elements of the '60s counter-culture and New Left revolutionary cadres. These are Marxist-Leninists in suits. Their man is now in office for a second term after having bludgeoned the so-called political embodiment of corporate power, GOP nominee Mitt Romney --- a man who was wholly unprepared for the onslaught of progressive blood libel and demonization that was thrown down throughout the campaign.

So conservatives can just suck it up and man the ramparts for the battles that are coming. The left's isn't even pretending to hide its program of fundamental transformation of the country, enunciated so well and violently by top Democrat Party hack Robert Borosage and his fellow subversives of the progressive movement.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

The 'Bonkers' Radical Left — The Suzanne Moore-Julie Burchill Uproar

Well, I can't beat this headline, from Dan Hodges, at Telegraph UK: "The Suzanne Moore-Julie Burchill uproar shows how utterly bonkers parts of the radical Left are at the moment." Here's the key bit:

@ampowerblog @rsmccain Most clueless neocons are a bit confused about what bullying is. "Bullying" is what that badly-written article did.
— Michael Rowe (@rowemichael) January 15, 2013

This idiot troll couldn't handle it, blocked me by the third tweet: ---> @rowemichael I'm getting fast on the draw! #HighNoon. @rsmccain
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) January 15, 2013

Oh god, that idiot @rowemichael was marinating in this drivel, "hate speech"? Isn't it always? guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/… … @rsmccain #LGBT #HRC
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) January 15, 2013

The Left detests a traitor. Or rather, there’s nothing the Left loves more than embarking on a witch-hunt for a traitor. Which is why Suzanne Moore found herself strapped firmly into the progressive ducking stool last week, after writing an article for the New Statesman that contained the line “We are angry with ourselves for not being happier, not being loved properly and not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual”. This single sentence, in a piece that otherwise sought to take a chainsaw to sexism and gender prejudice, saw Moore facing demands to apologise for what Pink News called her “recent transphobic outburst”.

No sooner had Moore been officially found to be in league with the devil than it was Julie Burchill’s turn. Burchill had defended her friend in a typically understated Observer piece, including a hot contender for most un-PC line of all time: “a gaggle of transsexuals telling Suzanne Moore how to write looks a lot like how I'd imagine the Black and White Minstrels telling Usain Bolt how to run would look”. This resulted in Lib Dem minister Lynne Featherstone demanding Burchill’s sacking, which was a very sensible response. What we all need at the moment is government ministers appointing newspaper columnists.

Next it was Owen Jones’s turn. The horny-handed tribune of the workers dared to suggest on Twitter there were probably more appropriate candidates for progressive outrage than Moore or Burchill, and was promptly vilified for his own treachery. Then, just as the whole thing was starting to resemble a surreal feminist/LGBT Marx brother’s sketch, in rushed gay rights activist Peter Tatchell shouting “Make that three hard-boiled eggs!” Actually, I couldn’t quite make out what Peter’s take on the whole issue was, but what I do know is he spent the next hour or so vainly trying to convince people he hadn’t become the new Bernard Manning.

I’ve got to be honest; I’ve found the spectacle of the cream of the progressive movement re-enacting the final scene from Reservoir Dogs strangely exhilarating. It’s like watching a grainy video from the 1970s, with Norman Mailer sitting in some run down cinema in Greenwich Village, swearing at Germaine Greer, and screaming “You damn harpies!” at every women in the room.

It’s also quite illustrative of some of the problems affecting the radical Left at the moment: not least the fact that a significant fraction of the radical Left is utterly bonkers. I’ve got my differences with Suzanne Moore – as a man I don’t actually feel collective responsibility for the breast-implant scandal, for example – but anyone who claims Moore is prejudiced is jumping an exceedingly large shark.

That's a lot of inside baseball --- or, er, cricket, be that as it may --- but by Jove I think he's got it!

And this idiot Michael Rowe above must really be searching the #Transsexual tweets, or something, because within seconds he was in my timeline attacking me as a "clueless neocon." What fun!

EXTRA: Hodges links to Paris Lees, so folks will for a moment understand why transsexuals are so damned unreasonable. See, "AN OPEN LETTER TO SUZANNE MOORE."

American Power