Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

 Last year at an event with Hillsdale College, Barrett’s student Stephanie Maloney asked the judge “What role, if any, should faith of a nominee have in the confirmation process?”

Barrett said, “None.”

“I mean, we have a long tradition of religious tolerance in this country. And in fact, the religious test clause in the Constitution makes it unconstitutional to impose a religious test on anyone who holds public office,” the judge explained.

“So whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added.

“I do have one thing that I want to add to that, though. I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

“So I think the public should be absolutely concerned about whether a nominee for judicial office will be willing and able to set aside personal preferences, be they moral, be they political, whatever convictions they are,” Barrett explained. “The public should be concerned about whether a nominee can set those aside in favor of following the law.”

“But that’s not a challenge just for religious people. I mean, that’s a challenge for everyone. And so I think it’s a dangerous road to go down to say that only religious people would not be able to separate out moral convictions from their duty,” she said.

Hey Leftists: get out of my face.

The LEFT/MSM/Democrats have been calling the President of the United States a Nazi, a fascist, a Russian agent, a white supremacist, a Traitor etc for 3 years because that's what they "think and feel" he is? I don't need anymore lectures from them. Not one.

— Ryan Van Sickle ⭐⭐⭐ (@Ryan_VanSickle) July 18, 2019

Man Arrested While Attempting To Smuggle Chick-Fil-A Sandwich Into San Antonio Airport

Babylon Bee:

SAN ANTONIO, TX—A local man was apprehended today while trying to smuggle a delicious Chick-fil-A classic chicken sandwich into San Antonio International Airport....Later on, during questioning, the man reportedly claimed he just wanted something to eat on the plane, but investigators weren't buying it. "It was obvious he wanted to bring hate and discrimination into this place in an act of terror," said a member of the San Antonio city council. "It's not ISIS or other extremist groups we need to worry about---it's Christian sandwiches."

U-M Refuses to Disclose Its President's Politicking

The University of Michigan is withholding some emails its president sent regarding President Donald Trump, claiming their content is protected under the Freedom of Information Act. The university, which took 106 days to respond to the open records request, claimed the content in those emails were “preliminary and advisory in nature.”

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy announced last Thursday that it is suing the university over a monthslong delay in completing its request for public information....

Michigan Capitol Confidential reported in early February that the Mackinac Center filed a FOIA request with the university on Nov. 16, 2016, asking for Schlissel’s emails containing the word “Trump.”

The request was filed after Schlissel made anti-Trump remarks at an on-campus protest on Nov. 9, the day after the election.

...

At the postelection protest on campus, Schlissel implied that students who voted for Trump voted for hate.

“Your voices worked out to be a 90/10 decision in favor of the unsuccessful candidate yesterday,” Schlissel told those at the protest. “Ninety percent of you rejected the kind of hate and the fractiousness and the longing for some sort of idealized version of a nonexistent yesterday that was expressed during (Trump's) campaign.” (The Michigan Daily has published a video of Schlissel’s speech.)

John Mozena, Mackinac Center vice president for marketing and communications, said in a press release that the FOIA request was only made because of Schlissel’s public comments.

“In his professional role as head of a public university, President Schlissel took a very public stance against President-elect Trump and the people who elected him,” he said. “Our CapCon team was interested in learning more about the decision-making process that led to the actions taken by this public university and its employee, and filed the FOIA request accordingly.”

The rationale for belonging to La Raza

A comment in the Wall Street Journal is a perfect illustration of why an ambitious attorney and judge would be part of La Raza Lawyer's Association.

The judge may not be a member of "bad" groups, because of ethics and professional, judicial employment reasons. Being a member of a legally distinct group is a technicality that the judge may trot out to explain away membership and still remain in bounds ethically.

HOWEVER, since 100% of the population infers that LR Lawyers is de facto LR membership, the desired effect is achieved. He is "one of us" for those who care about such matters.

It is extremely duplicitous, and in my book, it ought to be shunned in the highest judicial circles--at least the Senate could use that as a non-confirmation criteria.

Being a member of an ethnic affiliation group is not problematic per se. What becomes problematic is when the group "advocates", and even more so if the demographic is a sizable fraction of the population. The likelihood of a built-in conflict of interest increases dramatically with the size of the demographic.

Translation: if you're a member of KKK Lawyers Association but the group says it's not part of the "bad" KKK you send the message to racists that you care about their issues. If the KKK is some fringe group whose membership can meet in a phone both that's not a big issue. It becomes a big issue if a large part of the population is racist. Now your bigotry is amplified and justified by a lot of people. That how people get lynched and the murderers are never convicted.

Sadness, shame and blame at Yale over First Amendment repeal video

Members of the Yale University community on Thursday responded with a mix of embarrassment, sadness and literal disbelief to a viral video showing students there freely signing a petition that calls for the repeal of the First Amendment.

“It numbs the mind that dozens of Yale students could sign a petition to revoke the First Amendment,” freshman Grant Richardson wrote FoxNews.com in an email. “Besides the fact that the First Amendment lists the most fundamentally important rights we hold as Americans, it is rather embarrassing to think Yalies could not see the irony that they were petitioning away – their right to petition.”

And here's the reaction from a Yale Professor, which explains why Yale students will enthusiastically destroy free speech, a free press, the free exercise of religion, the right to freely assemble and the right to petition.

A member of the Yale Law School faculty also responded to the video, and wasn’t happy with what he saw.

“It’s a sad commentary on the present state of public opinion,” said Professor Bruce Ackerman. “This is a moment at which fundamental principles are under assault from both the left and the right.”

“The collection of 50 Yalie signatures for a petition to repeal the First Amendment is a sad commentary on the present state of public opinion.”

But Ackerman said he also felt the First Amendment debate wasn’t as important as more pressing issues.

“It does not remotely pose the same danger as the support of all Republican candidates, with the exception of Rand Paul, for President Obama’s unilateral war against ISIS in plain violation of the Constitution,” Ackerman said.

That part of the professor’s response didn’t sit well with Horowitz.

“This is exactly part of the problem. Why would Yale students, or university students anywhere in this country, feel a fidelity to our fundamental beliefs, when their professors try to shoehorn in anti-American sentiment at every opportunity?” he told FoxNews.com.

And, of course, the same people who defend the abortionists selling baby parts at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics have come out from under their rocks and claim that the video is doctored.

Yale University’s spokesman had a very different reaction to the video, essentially saying he did not believe the accuracy of what he saw.

“There are a number of heavily edited prank videos like this one circulating lately in which someone surreptitiously records people while pretending to support a position that they actually oppose, and trying to get the individuals they speak with to agree with them,” Tom Conroy wrote in an email. “I have to acknowledge that I don’t take them seriously as an accurate representation of what every person interviewed or shown in the videos believes.”

In the video, in which he is shown clearly explaining to several students that the petition calls for repeal of the First Amendment, Horowitz said he was able to quickly collect nearly 60 signatures in less than an hour. Among those who signed were students who appeared to enthusiastically support the abolition of their First Amendment rights.

“I think it’s really awesome that you’re out here,” one man says in the video.

Boston University Professor Tweets That White Males Are A "Problem Population." And Yes. There's More.

This woman is a professor of African American Studies at Boston College. Here's what she thinks of white people, especially white males.

Deal with your white sh*t, white people. slavery is a *YALL* thing.

And there's this:

“White masculinity isn’t a problem for america’s colleges, white masculinity is THE problem for america’s colleges.”

... and this:

Every MLK week I commit myself to not spending a dime in white-owned businesses. and every year i find it nearly impossible.”

A Boston College spokesman replied to an inquiry:

“Professor Grundy is exercising her right to free speech and we respect her right to do so.”

From this we can assume that Boston College welcomes racists and bigots.

This is what racist bigots look like.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse compares Grundy to Geller.

Makes you understand modern books

No comment needed.

Ace: But I guess it's okay to embrace an expressly racist agenda if that racist agenda is "Punching Up."

Virginian Pilot Reinforces Hate

The Virginian Pilot reacted with hate and bigotry to the evidence that the fable about coed “Jackie” gang raped by the fraternity brothers at UVA was a lie from beginning to end.

They ran a cartoon showing a “right wing” couch potato ranting about rape to his TV set while his daughter enters the room, apparently the victim of rape.

It’s the kind of thing you expect from the “cool kids gang” in junior high taunting their classmates after they are exposed as fakes. It’s what the little bastard do to reclaim their superior status.

There is a great takedown of this kind of crap from the people who hold the megaphone but lack either moral stature or a sense of shame.

The problem with the editors of the Virginian Pilot is not so much that they failed to see through the bullshit of the Rolling Stone story. Lots of people thought that accusing men at UVA of gang rape without a shred of hard evidence would not actually reach print in a national publication. But you would be wrong, and the editors of the Virginian Pilot went into paroxysm of rage over the fable. They assumed without evidence that other members of the MSM had a shred of decency left.

Wrong again.

But here’s the real crime. After admitting that the rape didn't happen, after grudgingly admitting that none of it’s true, the MSM and the editors of the Virginia Pilot believe the rest of the fable printed in Rolling Stone IS true.

For example, the part about UVA sweeping rape accusations under the rug. Here’s the first person to actually question the rolling Stone story (no, it’s not a writer for the Washington Post but a blogger) Shots in the Dark. The MSM just piggy backed on his questions, just as Dan Rather’s lies about George Bush’s National Guard record were first uncovered by a blogger.

The one true thing about Jackie’s story…is that it disproves Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s story. Erdely used Jackie to argue that UVa is indifferent to allegations of sexual assault. But as we know now, the university took Jackie’s story very seriously. Jackie spoke with a dean who subsequently checked up on her multiple times; was offered counseling; was offered the opportunity of pursuing the matter through university channels or through the police; and was recommended to a rape survivor group. Then, she was taken seriously when she claimed that she’d been hit in the head with a bottle, although there was ample reason to suggest that this incident was fabricated. Does this sound like official indifference to you?

But here’s the reason why the cartoon in the Virginian Pilot defaming conservatives is such a heaping pile of crap. It’s because they took the rest of the Rolling Stone story, the one that went beyond the lies about a gang rape and reinforced every bit of it. They believed it and ridicule anyone who thinks it too is a lie.

Remember how I said that I thought Columbia made one big, fundamental mistake?

Here it is.

The only part of Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s article closely examined by Columbia was the lede, which detailed Jackie’s incredible story of gang rape.

Columbia should, in fact, have closely examined the entirety of Erdely’s article.

Because ultimately, this article was not really about Jackie. Take a pencil, lop the Jackie story off the top, and the article could have run pretty much as it was.

The article was about the existence of rape culture and university indifference to said culture.

Jackie’s story was supposed to be proof of that, and Jackie’s story was a lie. But no one at Rolling Stone—not Erdely, not Dana, not Woods, not Wenner—seems to have considered just the possibility that maybe, just maybe, they were wrong about this.

Jackie’s lies do not in and of themselves disprove Rubin Erdely’s rape-culture thesis.

But if you examined the rest of the article with the same critical eye that you examine Jackie’s story, you’ll find that it, too, is deeply deceptive. “A Rape on Campus” is fashioned on selective presentation of material, the use of bogus or discredited statistics, quotes that are either fabricated or taken out of context, unconfirmed allegations, anonymous sources, the deliberate exclusion of evidence contrary to the author’s thesis, and material that is either fabricated or presented in a way that is so profoundly misleading it can only be evidence of incompetence or dishonesty. (The multiple verses of a UVa fight song, for example, that nobody at UVa has actually heard.)

Sabrina Rubin Erdely was not first and foremost trying to obtain justice for Jackie; that was incidental. Her intention was to prove the existence of rape culture and to shame and ostracize those whom she fervently believed participated in it.

When you know how Rubin Erdely went about her work, you are forced to conclude that she failed, that the rest of her story is as unbelievable as Jackie’s story—it’s just concocted in a slicker way. In the ongoing debate about sexual assault on campus, we must remember this.

The Virginian Pilot is – reluctantly I’m sure; they wanted the gang rape to be true – to back away from the details, but for them gang rape on UVA campus it “the Truth” even if there is zero evidence of this. It’s a belief system that comes from the air they breathe.

The really, really bad thing about this is that a female student at UVA was raped, and killed. It should have gotten more attention especially because the accused, Jesse Matthews is also accused of raping and killing students at Virginia Tech, Liberty University and Christopher Newport University. It should have been a warning about lone female students getting drunk and running around Charlottesville in the early hours of the morning and going somewhere with a stranger in the street.   But the rapist and killer was not a frat rat,  He was a young black man.  He was not (in Tom Wolfe’s term “the great white defendant”) that advances the narrative that fit the Virginia Pilot’s list of top ten people to hate.   

In fact, Sabrina Erdely admitted she spent months looking for the "perfect" victim and the "perfect" criminal and found it at UVA.  The press loved it.  it reinforced their stereotype.   Having been cheated out of their victims when the Duke lacrosse hoax blew up, the UVA frat rape was perfect.

Having been humiliated by having their perfect narrative exposed as a lie the sophomores at the Virginian Pilot take out their bile on the people that had nothing to do with spreading their lies.

It's been a bad week for the press.  With the kind of support that the family who owned Memories Pizza received, it sucks to be one of the editors of the Virginia Pilot.

Facts matter: Left sticks to ‘narratives,’ evidence be damned

The verdict’s in on Rolling Stone. According to no less an authority than the Columbia Journalism Review, the magazine’s last year story of a University of Virginia gang rape was a “journalistic failure [that] encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking.”

But as with many other stories that don’t fit into the right narrative, the media will continue to draw the wrong lessons.

As an AP article noted, “Despite its flaws, the article heightened scrutiny of campus sexual assaults amid a campaign by President Barack Obama.”

Despite its flaws? You mean despite the fact that as far as anyone can tell, the story was made up out of whole cloth?

The NY Times brings the usual lies:

“Some saw a more complex picture, saying that the uproar over the story and the steps that the university had taken since in an effort to change its culture had, in the end, raised awareness and probably done the school, and the nation, some good.”

How has the university benefited from the fact that a fraternity has been falsely accused of a horrific crime? And how has the nation benefited from the false but now widespread belief that violent rape, even gang rape, is raging on US campuses?

And then there's the "Hands up don't Shoot"

Even The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capeheart, whose article “ ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ Was Built on a Lie” offered a kind of mea culpa for rushing to judgment in the case, concluded: “Yet this does not diminish the importance of the real issues unearthed in Ferguson by Brown’s death. Nor does it discredit what has become the larger ‘Black Lives Matter.’ ”

Actually, yes, it does diminish the importance because it calls into question whether those were real issues at all.

Meet the Memories Pizza Family

These are the people the media tried to destroy. These are the people that Tony Macrini and all the bigots in the media wanted to drive into the ground.

Modern media and the destructive representation of conservativism

Although rightfully excoriated for his comments comparing public unions to ISIS, Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-Wis.) treatment by the media continues to highlight the gross disparity in the way with which conservative candidates are analyzed and represented, when compared to their liberal counterparts. Whereas Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton are all hailed for their various policy proposals, as well as their personal and professional achievements, individuals like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are ruthlessly assailed for every quip or comment, be they contextual or otherwise.

This was patently evident in 2008 as well as 2012, and will most assuredly be applicable once again in 2016. From tales of Mitt Romney’s elementary school bullying, to reports about Paul’s “Aqua Buddha” college days, the depths to which modern media apparatuses will dredge in order to invalidate a Republican’s candidacy, surpasses even those explored by the Trieste. This is highly problematic, as it only takes an anonymous comment, erroneous claim, or an unverified accusation, in order to destroy the legitimacy of a right leaning contender. This same approach however, would be understandable if it were equally applied to both sides of the political aisle, but seldom is that ever the case.

Each of the aforementioned Democratic heavyweights has more baggage than a gypsy caravan, but what few stories do make it to print regarding their issues are typically brief, excused, and quickly forgotten. It may not seem like much, but such a handicap with relation to past misdeeds or suspected skullduggery can (quite effectively and easily mind you), tilt and distort the public’s perception of a given individual. When this happens predominantly to GOP candidates, the hazards become quite clear.

Tea Partiers are dismissed outright, while socialist fringes on the left are never acknowledged nor addressed. Adjectives such as “wacko, crazy, radical, extremist, fundamentalist, and myopic” have become synonymous with the Republican Party, whilst Democrats are only reported to be pragmatic or “slightly more progressive”. Even thoroughly debunked claims have been routinely utilized to attack conservative hopefuls.

Two weeks before the Iowa caucus, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) surged to a comfortable and timely lead, although immediately upon attaining said position; questions regarding racist newsletters bearing his name were suddenly raised. Given the nature of the accusations, such inquiries could have been viewed as reasonable, if only the articles hadn’t been penned some 25 years earlier, and discredited no fewer than 10 times since.

Unlike Paul however, the discourse surrounding New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, has already pivoted from questionable associations, to his plans for statewide reforms. This has all transpired less than two weeks after it was revealed that the speaker of the New York Assembly, Sheldon Silver, had been taking millions in bribes in exchange for various kickbacks. Cuomo, although not charged, had been accused of interfering with the Moreland Commission, a body he started (and eventually disbanded) in order to root out said instances of corruption. Yet now, rather than looking deeper, journalistic lap dogs, content with warming the thighs of a high profile Democrat, have moved on to more important issues, like raising the state’s minimum wage.

Predictably, this is just one of many such instances, but while Democrats can sleep off their scandals like Ted Kennedy nursing a hangover following a dalliance with a certain bridge, journalists are all too willing to hit 88 mph in the doctor’s Delorian in order to uncover (or retread) alleged GOP misconduct. Whereas evaluations of John Kerry’s service record were equated to blasphemy in 2004, coverage of the investigation into George W. Bush’s National Guard activities, were reported nightly until it was revealed that the story was completely fabricated. While the latter example did result in Dan Rather’s unceremonious dismissal from CBS, it unquestionably re-directed the national dialogue for weeks on end.

Of course the media are really Democrat operative with bylines.  They are not biased, they consider the Right as the enemy to be destroyed.

Read the whole thing.

#illridewithyou Was Even More Fraudulent Than I Thought

When an Islamic terrorist took hostages in a Sydney, Australia cafe this week, the first thing our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters did — before the siege was even over, before two of the hostages were killed — was change the subject.

The real victims weren’t the hostages. The real victims were Muslims who were too scared to use public transportation because of the imminent anti-Muslim violence that never happened. To combat this nonexistent threat, some genius proposed the Twitter hashtag #illridewithyou, which was supposed to somehow show solidarity with the “victims.” And of course, it went viral among journalists and other people who don’t care about the truth.

As it turns out, #illridewithyou was an even emptier gesture than I first thought. The incident that so inspired all those smug leftists worldwide didn’t actually happen. John Hayward explains:

What never occurs to the Special Snowflake Brigade is that their crusades amount to vicious slander against the people they collective accuse of harboring the darkest thoughts, and hovering moments away from taking the most terrible actions. While a real terrorist was subjecting his captives to hours of sheer terror that ended with gunfire and bloodshed, Jacobs was inventing an imaginary incident of cultural oppression to denounce her entire society for something it didn’t actually do.

In fact, she was doing exactly what she falsely accused Australians of doing to Muslims. She’s every bit as prejudiced as the imaginary bigots the #illridewithyou crowd took an ostentatious stand against; her bigotry simply has different, more politically correct targets. She wraps up her Brisbane Times column by trying to exile her imaginary hobgoblins from Australia, in precisely the same terms that would doubtless drive her incandescent with rage if they were directed at the groups she favors ...
It’s interesting to note that even the original version of Rachel Jacobs’ story was pretty thin, and relied heavily on her final encounter with the alleged “oppressed Muslim woman” for what little veracity it had; that parting scene confirmed that the woman had removed her headscarf as a concession to bigotry, and was grateful for Jacobs’ support to reclaim her dignity. That’s the part that occurred entirely as a delusional breeze wafting between the windmills of Jacobs’ mind. The #illridewithyou hoax only worked because so many people were eager to receive such confirmation of their prejudices, such validation of their feelings of superiority over the miserable cavemen who make up the quietly seething racist bulk of their societies. As America has been learning to its cost over the past six years, it is a very bad idea to put people who feel that way in charge of your government.
Now, are the global media outlets who pushed the #illridewithyou hoax so energetically going to pay equal attention to the author’s admission that she made the whole thing up out of whole cloth?

Refusing to Photograph a Gay Wedding Isn't Hateful

I rarely agree with Conor Friedersdorf, but this article is fair.

Employment Law Firm: Drop American Studies Assn membership or risk Title VII liability

Since ASA announced its academic boycott of Israel, we have confirmed that 6 universities have dropped their Institutional Memberships, while 11 more have denied being Institutional Members despite being so listed.

The updated list appears at the very bottom of this post.

While over 190 university presidents have denounced the ASA academic boycott of Israel, many have decided either to keep the membership or to leave the decision to individual American Studies Departments. Some others are switching the membership listing to their American Studies Departments, rather than the full University name.

Anything other than a full termination of Institutional Membership, however, opens up the universities to legal liability for national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That potential liability is explained in a recent article by two attorneys at the Seyfarth Shaw law firm.

Read the whole thing.

One college that is in our area, the College of William & Mary, will be asked about this.

A good reason not to leave a cash tip

It appears that the waitresses of the "oppressed minority" persuasion may be faking being stiffed by bigots in order to generate sympathy and get cash sent to them after they spread their stories.

Example:  Dayna Morales is a lesbian and appears to have victimized a couple she waited on.

Dayna Morales, a former Marine and a server at Gallop Asian Bistro in Bridgewater, posted a photo on Facebook earlier this month, showing the bill with a line through the space for a tip. The photo of the receipt showed someone had written, “I’m sorry but I cannot tip because I do not agree with your lifestyle.”
Morales indicated in her Facebook post and in subsequent media interviews . . .that the customer wrote that line.
But a family contacted NBC 4 New York claiming their receipt from the restaurant shows they did leave a tip, and provided what they said was a credit card statement as proof.
The husband and wife, who asked to remain anonymous, showed. . .a receipt that appeared to be printed at the same minute, on the same date, for the same $93.55 total, except with an $18 tip. They also provided a document they said was a Visa bill, which appears to indicate their card was charged for the meal plus the tip, for a total of $111.55.

So, who are you going to believe?

The Anchoress makes the point that you can't ever prove that you left a cash tip and could be victimized by his new wave of fraud and deception.

Because my mother was a waitress who worked for mainly for tips, when my husband and I dine out we will very often strike a line through the “tips” portion of the bill, and leave our gratuity in cash. We do this for a couple of reasons — because often food-servers need the cash to pay the babysitter when they get home; because keeping track of what tips should show up on a paycheck is difficult; because why not let people access their tips immediately?
Well, we may decide to stop leaving cash.

 Another example of self-victimization that netted the server over $10,000 in cash gifts.

The N-Word

Bud Norman would prefer that no one use the N-word, including those with skin of a darker hue than mine. 

The notion that the word is acceptable when used by someone of a darker skin color is now commonplace. A professional basketball player who used the slur in a “tweet” was recently fined $25,000 for the offense, a sizeable amount even to someone drawing professional basketball player’s salary, and he offered the same justification. The resultant controversy prompted two well-known dark-hued sports broadcasters to admit that they use the slur routinely, with neither offering any apology for the habit, and one indignantly implied that criticism of the practice is an effort by lighter-skinned people to dictate the behavior of their darker brethren. Both agree that lighter-skinned people should not be permitted use of the word, but for reasons having to do with linguistic empowerment or something it should be widely used by the darker-skinned.

Although we have no desire to dictate the behavior of anyone, beyond the obvious rules against rape and robbery and murder and such that the requirements of a civilized society, but it does seem a sign of strange times that the stigma against racial slurs is regarded as racist and racial equality is to be achieved by having different rules of social etiquette for different races. We would prefer that the word fall into disuse for the same old-fashioned reasons that we were taught to avoid it, because it is rude and vulgar, but that seems unlikely now that rudeness and vulgarity are celebrated as authentic self-expression and righteous rebellion against rules that vanished decades ago. The great appeal of racial slurs is that they’re only words left with any shock value, and the easiest way to gain all-important attention is to shout them with a carefully posed defiance at a gullible media.

Kerry Dougherty thinks you are a terminal disease.

Kerry Dougherty thinks you are a terminal disease.

She was quoting Larry Saboto, but she apparently agrees. Here’s Kerry on the major candidates.

One candidate was dishonest. The other hated women.

It's a wonder anyone went to the polls.

"These two candidates are among the worst I've ever seen," declared the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato during an election eve appearance on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show."

"Virginians have a choice between a far-right-wing Tea Party social conservative and a Democrat who's been guilty of sleazy business deals and questionable fundraising," Sabato sighed.

"I've never seen unfavorable ratings this high for both of the major-party candidates," he added, as a graphic flashed on the screen showing that only 24 percent of Virginia voters had a favorable impression of the Democrat and only 29 percent liked the Republican.

Virginia's premier pundit said the situation was so dire this year, "I had one person tell me it was like a choice between a heart attack and cancer."

Terminal diseases. That sums it up nicely.

Any wonder so many held their noses Tuesday as they picked the lesser of two little men?

"I may not vote; I'm serious," whispered one of my yoga pals from her mat early Tuesday. "I hate them both. Really hate them."

By late afternoon, Twitter was on fire with posts from disgruntled Virginia voters.

"Would rather have a crook than a crazy, which is why this Republican just voted for McAuliffe for Governor," one person tweeted.

"Dear ladies in Va.," tweeted another. "Plz vote with your brain and not fall for the same old uterus crap. You are more intelligent than that!"

So let’s ignore for a second what Kerry thinks about McAuliffe, the guy who made $18 million in Global Crossings stock sales shortly before the company declared bankruptcy and threw about 10,000 people out of work.

 

Here’s what she thinks about you Tea Party people. You’re “far right” kooks who hate women. That would be a surprise to the young girls, mothers pushing their strollers, businessmen and retirees, black and white at the first Tea Party rally I attended in Virginia Beach several years ago. You Tea Partyers are a terminal disease to electoral politics in the Old Dominion.

 

Oh, and you’re racist bigots who hate black people and if you’re black you are a self-hating black. You’re a homophobic knuckle dragger who want to deny people their rights. You’re gun toting rednecks who believe that a women’s place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And you listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch FOX News, you stupid racists.

Don’t try to deny it; it’s true what they say about your because you can read all about it in the Virginian Pilot.

Shocking: Bigoted White Tea Party Woman Beats Petite Black Female Reporter ... Ooops

"Out of the way, what do you think this is .... Asshole!"

Do not take my picture!

Via TownHall

I’m sorry, I got that wrong. Stupid me. I’m never going to make it in this business. It was actually a big black liberal woman who whaled on a petite white conservative female reporter last weekend.

Whew, thank God I corrected myself because we all know that if a hulking honky Tea Party mama with dragon nails had smacked down a svelte progressive black female reporter (and on film, no less) it would have caused a media firestorm that would have escalated into:

1. Daily front page coverage by the New York Times

2. Watts-like riots across the nation

3. Non-stop bit**ing from Al Sharpton

4. The end of the Tea Party as we know it

5. And a drunk Kanye would’ve surfaced on a quickly-cobbled, specious Hollywood telethon against racism sporting white Levolor shades and a red leather Michael Jackson jacket and somehow pin all this Tea Party violence on George W. Bush’s primal hatred for black people.