I’ve been reporting since early in December on the murder of Fuat Deniz, an Assyrian Christian university professor in Sweden.
You sure have! Eleven posts in the last month, each one a masterpiece of Muslim-bashing. BUT WAIT WHAT’S THIS?
But now the Swedish police have arrested a suspect, and politics was apparently not involved. Instead it was, like so many murders, a family quarrel.
But, hey, don’t be sad, Li’l’ Baron! You’re a right-wing kook, and that means that no matter what happens, you never, ever have to apologize, even as you write a post that illustrates how you’re completely full of shit! Right?
There are still peculiarities in this case — such as the fact that Prof. Deniz was “stabbed” in the neck, in classical jihad fashion, as well as the earlier threats against Assyrian academics — but it now seems unlikely that they will ever be fully explained.
Here is fact-filled report on the indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Missouri against a Muslim charity and several of its former officers, and also against a former congressman of. . .um, [cough] a political party whose identity. . .um, [nibbling a carrot] yes, a former congressman.
Yes, they do-dilly-do. I’m just catching up on everything I’ve missed at the blog this week, and I think this amazing quote from the early National Review about the dangers of uppity commie Negroes does indeed bear revisiting:
Let us gently say the fiend who set off the bomb does not have the sympathy of the white population in the South; in fact, he set back the cause of the white people there so dramatically as to raise the question whether in fact the explosion was the act of a provocateur — of a Communist, or of a crazed Negro.
Can you imagine if they’d had blogs back then? You’d have Charles Johnson* examining every still of the blown-up churches looking for evidence of enhanced smoke. You’d have Michelle Malkin publishing articles in the New York Post mocking the press for over-reporting the bombings and gloating that the church was “still standing.” And you’d have Frank Gaffney penning a bunch of baseless BS for FOX News about Saddam Hussein being the REAL culprit behind the bombings.
Sigh. Life is terrible.
*Copy’n’paste the linky here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only)
And it makes perfect sense why America hates Boston. If I sucked as much as the rest of America did and had to look with envy upon a golden city made of sparkledust that had world-famous educational institutions, a prominent role in American history and the most winning sports teams in recent memory, I’d hate it as well.
This is not a funny post. This is not a post where we wryly mock Jonah, or his face-mullet, or the sad fact that he suckled bitter milk from the teat of Lucianne Goldberg, or that, were it not for the machinations of Mommy Goldberg and Linda Tripp, Jonah would be managing an Applebee’s restaurant in suburban Washington. No, this is a serious post, because I have finally had it with this miserable dirigible of flatulence.
At his blog devoted to Liberal Fascism: From Mussolini to Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, Jonah said this:
Michael [Ledeen,in his review of Liberal Fascism] seems to be saying that Nazism was primary about racism, not socialism. And that the socialism was a mere epiphenomenon. I think he’s right and wrong about that. I think he’s forcing a hard intellectual distinction that doesn’t need to be made. Socialism today is seen as a purely economic doctrine. It’s not. The “social question” was aimed at how best to organize society and economics was merely the best empirical grounds for having that discussion (and then the Marxists said every thing was about economics, etc). But for many non-Marxist socialists, socialism was about more than economics. For many socialists and progressives, socialism was racism and racism was socialism. Nazism was socialism for a race. The Nazi view was uglier and more extreme than anyone else’s, but it was not philosophically so distinct from the views of many progressives in America and socialists in Britain.
Okay, so Jonah, a contributing editor of National Review, fer chrissakes, is throwing an accusation of racism against progressives and the left. That doesn’t just take the cake, it takes the fucking cake platter, the table under the cake platter, the whole fucking dining room, the house too, and the block on which the house is located, and the city, state, nation, planet, galaxy and universe. At its inception, the whole point of the National Review, the magazine that pays for Jonah’s triple bacon cheeseburgers, was the virulent racism of William F. Buckley and his cohorts, all of whom spilled truckloads of ink over the virtues of segregation.
If you don’t believe me, let’s take on instructive trip down memory lane and read stuff that was printed in the National Review in its halcyon days. Here’s what NR had to say about the Birmingham church bombings after they occurred:
Let us gently say the fiend who set off the bomb does not have the sympathy of the white population in the South; in fact, he set back the cause of the white people there so dramatically as to raise the question whether in fact the explosion was the act of a provocateur — of a Communist, or of a crazed Negro.
And let it be said that the convulsions that go on, and are bound to continue, have resulted from revolutionary assaults on the status quo, and a contempt for the law, which are traceable to the Supreme Court’s manifest contempt for the settled traditions of Constitutional practice. Certainly it now appears that Birmingham’s Negroes will never be content so long as the white population is free to be free.
And, of course, there’s more. Lots more after the fold.
Atlas does not live by words alone, contribute to the damn thing! […] Seriously, it takes enormous time and effort to build this alternative media outlet, help Atlas run.
As is often the case, the comments are the best part:
I don’t subscribe to newspapers or magazines because I can get all the news that MATTERS TO ME – from Atlas Shrugs.
(We’re the backup players, and she’s out front, the lead singer – it’s like we’re ‘The Who’ and she’s our Roger Daltry) [link]
Isn’t it more like she’s the “older brother” from 2Gether and the readers are William Hung? [Sadly, No! is more like Die Fantastischen Vier, only more numerous — kind of like The Three Musketeers.]
Then again sometimes it’s the comments that don’t make it that are even better:
Went over to Titz-on-a-Blintz to see how Pammy’s fundraising was going and inquired if she paid for her breast implants with a similar blog beg. First time I ever had a comment deleted anywhere.
When the Colts ducked the AFC Championship Game with an indefensible choke job against San Diego, many die-hard Boston fans thought the same thing: Ralph Sampson.
After all, a heavily favored Lakers team pulled the same trick in the ’86 Western Conference finals, allowing themselves to be “shocked” by the upstart Rockets — with Sampson making the series-winning shot in Game 5 at Los Angeles — to avoid what would have been a ritual beating by an unstoppable Celtics team. …
Look, I’m not saying the ’07 Colts or ’86 Lakers openly chose to lose. They just took the easy way out. Subconsciously, they were probably thinking, “Deep down, we know we’re not winning the title this year,” and responded in crisis with the appropriate amount of urgency. In the process, they cheated two unforgettable teams of punctuating unforgettable seasons by topping their natural rivals.
Of course, fans of the Lakers and the Colts are to be forgiven if for some idiotic reason they thought their teams let them down those years. Clearly it was New Englanders who were stabbed in the back in ’86 and again this year, ‘cheated’ out of the theoretically reflected glory that comes with ‘ritual beatings’ put on by oversexed glandular carpetbaggers.
Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning owe the city of Boston an apology.
There is one clear winner, though: the GOP itself. Contrary to all expectations, the Republican race is exciting. No candidate has proved to be a complete dud. All have shone for their moment in the sun.
What, pray tell, have been Fred Thompson’s moments in the sun? Did any of them have to do with Chris Matthews’ erection? Rudy “Losing is Everything” Giuliani’s? Ron “Amero” Paul’s? Duncan Hunter’s? Whatever happened to Tom Tancredo?
And so far all have fought tough but fair in a series of good-humored debates. I suspect the voters are beginning to like them.
What do you think God’s standard is on anchor babies and birthright citizenship? (Manger!) Does Huckabee’s God believe in borders? What is God’s monetary policy? Is Jesus a capitalist? How much economic disparity will he tolerate? Wouldn’t God want us all to have health care? Nice shoes?
What about rendering unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s, and unto God that which is God’s? Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU. Even if you share his ultimate views on the definition of marriage, or the desirability of abortion on demand.
So apparently it’s okay to shove religion down the throats of women and gays to advance an anti-gay and anti-choice agenda, but it is beyond the pale for anyone to use religion to advance an agenda seeking social justice. Apparently God hates fags but loves poverty. These people are truly loathsome.
Oh, and just who exactly is this “Ceaser” that we are supposed to render stuff to?
When we last saw Douglas MacKinnon, who used to be Bob Dole’s press secretary, he was over at Clown Hall pitching a fit because all the criminals shown on TV are white even though everyone knows that all criminals in real life are black. Well, he’s back at Town Hall again, all riled up at how mean Hollywood liberals are and how much time they spend “hating” things:
Chief among these “haters,” is late night talk show host, David Letterman.
Hey, Doug, back away from the TV and put down the remote before you hurt yourself. Everybody knows that Sean Penn and Barbra Streisand are the biggest haters in Hollywood. When it comes to hating, Letterman is just a pischer.
“Not so,” retorts MacKinnon, because Letterman was once rude to Bob and Liddy Dole:
When I served as former Senator Bob Dole’s press secretary, I got to see some of [Letterman’s] strange behavior up close and personal. …
The segment between the Doles and Letterman went very well. Letterman was warm, respectful, engaging, attentive, and funny. It was after the segment, and after the taping of the show, that we got to witness some of the “quirkiness.” …
Soon after the program wrapped, those on the program and staff or representatives, were milling about inside or just outside of the green room. As we did this, a staffer for “Late Show” suddenly walked from the stage to the area of the green room and breathlessly announced that we would all have to get inside the green room and close the door behind us. When I asked why, I was told, “Dave does not like to be seen or touched by the guests or their staff when he exits the stage.” Okay.
Does such curious conduct help to explain Letterman’s non-stop Bush bashing?
Uh, no, Doug, it doesn’t.
Does Letterman somehow harbor an unexpressed guilt in his subconscious of such magnitude for not serving in Vietnam, that he punishes himself in the guise of the same-age President Bush?
Does MacKinnon somehow harbor an unexpressed guilt of such magnitude in his subconscious that he’s a dim-witted political hack that he punishes himself by cribbing an Internet term paper on Freud, garbling quotes from it and slipping them into a Clown Hall column?
Is he yet another, self-hating entertainer bouncing from the couch to the camera?
Please. Make. It. Stop.
Whatever the answer, Bush has clearly become the de-facto therapist for Letterman.
Just like a liberal, always trying to get free health care from the government.
Clif adds:
After bouncing from couch to camera, Letterman punishes himself by showing a video of Bush (then Governor and presidential candidate) wiping his glasses on the back of a producer’s shirt. This incident really troubled Letterman, because he doesn’t like any guest-touching business and became the reason that Letterman tells jokes about the President. Until after this horrifying incident, Letterman had never told any jokes about other U.S. President or presidential candidate.
