Breitbart’s death brings out the hate

March 2, 2012

Andrew Breitbart 1969 - 2012

The news of Andrew Breitbart’s death yesterday was barely being distributed when the hate from the left began spreading like wildfire.

There is no doubt Breitbart had his enemies on the left.  The conservative crusader had exposed the corruption of Acorn, the hypocrisy of Shirley Sherrod, and the filth of one Anthony Weiner and his media organization was in the process of editing video of a younger Barack Obama that would put Dear Leader in a far different light than the minion media gave him in 08.

The left loves to whine about the “incivility” from the right and the “hate” speech of conservatives, yet when it comes to their own, silence is the only sound heard.

A few samples from Charile Speiring of the Washington Examiner :

As news broke this morning of the tragic death of Conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart, liberals celebrated the news on Twitter.

The most influential tweet came from Slate’s Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias), who tweeted: “Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart dead.”

AlmightyBob ‏ @AlmightyBoob : @AndrewBreitbart haha youre dead and in hell being a gay with hitler

Jeff Glasse ‏ @jeffglasse : Andrew Breitbart now enjoying afternoon tea with Hitler #goodriddanceyouhack

@darrenfiorello: Andrew Breitbart died? Is it wrong that I’m happier about that than when they got bin Laden and Saddam?

Kellie Allen @thirtyseven : Breitbart helped destroy the career of someone I know. Good riddance, scumraker.

Scott On Da Rox  @ridinchillwaves : RT GOOD RIDDANCE..fascist prick @Gawker: Andrew Breitbart Dead?

Josh M ‏ @TheSocialest : Good riddance Breitbart. Hopefully they put James O’Keefe in your casket.

John Kapp ‏ @johnkapp : Andrew Breitbart was a racist, sexist, homophobe. Good riddance.

Gabriel ‏ @gabriel0923 : Andrew #Breitbart has died having been finally consumed by his revolting hatred! The world is better off without him!

Dufus ‏ @dufus : Did we cry when Hitler died? No.. #Breitbart see you in hell asshole

Natasha Yar-Routh ‏ @xiomberg : Andrew Breitbart is dead, good riddance to bad trash. He was a vile excuse for a human being

Dave Lartigue ‏ @daveexmachina : Andrew Breitbart has died. Honestly, good riddance. He helped poison the country where I live and we are better off without him.

Lalo Alcaraz ‏ @laloalcaraz RT @Mfusion66: RIP Breitbart? Nah, too good to be true

vtred ‏ @vtred1 : Good riddance to Andrew Breitbart – a McCarthyite nutcase.

Sean Paul Kelley ‏ @seanpaulkelley Andrew Breitbart has died:… If so, good riddance.

CpG ‏ @Crow1138 : I know it’s wrong, but good riddance “@cnnbrk: Conservative blogger Andrew #Breitbart has died, attorney says.”

TahitiNut ‏ @TahitiNut : Forgive me, God, for I have sinned. I err on the side of being pleased with a death … of Andrew Breitbart. Good riddance.

michael mayer ‏ @prisonforbush: Breitbart dead? D Good riddance. More republicans should follow his lead.

DAC ‏ @dac2527 : Satan calls Andrew Breitbart home… Good riddance!

Kate Witko ‏ @katewitko : Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43 from “natural causes”. hrm yes I suppose wine is pretty natural. good riddance, asshole.

WeirdArchives ‏ @WeirdArchives : Looks like it’s official. Andrew Breitbart is dead. Personally I don’t like the guy, so good riddance to bad rubbish.

Scott On Da Rox ‏ @ridinchillwaves : RT GOOD RIDDANCE..fascist prick @Gawker: Andrew Breitbart Dead?

Mike Hightower ‏ @MikeHightower1 Good riddance andrew breitbart.

Nick Huinker ‏ @towndrinker good riddance to bad rubbish. no reason to mourn someone who made it their business to make this world a less pleasant place. #breitbart

Michael David ‏ @renmiked Good riddance Andrew #Breitbart.

@Sttbs73 It is very hard to have sympathy for an evil person like Andrew Breitbart! I am done being NICE.

@CleverTrousers: Andrew Breitbart died! Today looks like it’s going to be a GREAT day. #deadgasbags

@crmlqt: Andrew Breitbart is dead….one less racist!!!!!

@jawillie: The saddest thing about Andrew Breitbart’s death is that he died such a douchebag.

Inglorious Basterdz ‏ @TheLibertyLamp : Andrew Breitbart destroyed lives based on LIES, I will not be some phony liberal and pretend condolences. ROT IN HELL ANDREW U BASTARD!

Breitbart saw through the minion media and noticed that much of the “polarized” political discourse we see in the country today as nothing more than conservatives no longer willing to lie down and let the liberal propaganda steam roller over them as the country rotted from within.

While Breitbart battled the liberal lies on a national scale, local conservatives see it on almost a daily basis with our own purveyor of such, the Erstwhile Conservative.

From spreading an irresponsible blog post about a Romney slogan being tied to the KKK and calling a simple “Keep America American” phrase “disgusting” to posting outright lies to defend his Dear Leader against the truths spoken by Romney and Santorum following the Michigan primaries, the incivility, hate and hypocrisy of the left is alive and well in every city, every county, across every state in this union and right here at home.

No matter what you thought of Breitbart, it should be noted that the unity we all felt post 9/11 was not shattered by conservatives.  It began to crack when the Pelosis, Schumers, and Weiners began the hate-fest against Bush for purely partisan political reasons.

The President’s call for more “civility” in our political discourse following the shooting of Rep. Giffords and the tragedy in Tucson lasted only until the President himself saw political opportunity in demeaning Republicans in Congress.

So the next time you hear a liberal whining about the “incivility” and “hatred” in our political discourse today, hand the idiot a mirror.  The cause will be staring him right in the face.

Obama 2012:  Kick him out or kiss it goodbye.

Tags: , , , ,

6 Responses to Breitbart’s death brings out the hate

  1. A Nonny Moose on March 2, 2012 at 10:03 am

    They really can’t help themselves. No one is a good enough actor to keep their true nature from coming out in an unguarded moment of glee. I’ve been pointing out their arrogant, condescending nature for years. I’m not sure if being a leftist causes this sort of undying hatred, or if one simply gravitates toward being a liberal because that undying hatred exists, but whichever may be the case, the two go hand in hand. It’s almost as difficult to find a fuel-injected Model T as it is to find a truly happy liberal. Their fleeting moments of joy come only when they can celebrate a death of someone who disagrees with them. After a couple days they’re back to their seething hatred of anything and anyone who isn’t exactly like them. So yeah, lefties, never mind the fact that Breitbart left behind a widow and four kids who now have no father. It’s PARTY TIME! Wooot! Feel better about yourselves now?

    Jim Geraghty of National Review publishes a letter every weekday, called “Morning Jolt”. Today’s was about Breitbart, that steaming pile of corn-riddled human excrement named Yglesias, and the inevitable reaction of the hateful liberals. He had a great summation of it, which I’ll share here, as it nicely sums up everything I’ve said about the left for years. All emphasis is mine:

    Really, holding one’s tongue, offering even disingenuous expressions of sympathy, typing the letters “RIP,” when did that get so hard? When did that bar become too high? We have these cultural traditions for a reason. (A quite conservative sentiment, I suppose.) We have them for many reasons, high among them, avoiding mourners’ registering their objections across the noses of the snide and obnoxious. (It’s one of the reasons I strongly suspect that if some grieving parent were to machine-gun a whole flock of the Fred Phelps funeral protesters, every witness would suddenly get struck blind and every jury would remain stubbornly unconvinced.) We shouldn’t suggest that mocking the dead in front of those mourning a loved one is an invitation to violent retribution; the American people are a kind and patient people. But even the most kind and patient people have their limits.

    I had observed, yesterday, that there were not merely a handful of folks on the left sneering about how happy they were that Breitbart had suddenly died. There were gobs and gobs of them, all over Twitter and the web at large. If you need examples, Charlie Spiering collected plenty here, though I’d urge most of sound mind to avoid putting themselves through reading that.

    You can call this whatever you like — the Daily-Kos-ification of the Left, perhaps — but it confirms what many of us suspected and/or feared. I didn’t want to believe it, really. I personally know too many people I’d identify as Democrats, if not liberals, who are too decent to ever express such raw hate and cruelty. But a large chunk of the rank and file of the Left — way more than a small percentage — really don’t believe that their opponents deserve anything resembling basic human dignity or respect.

    We’re not really people to them. It’s not an accident that New York Times columnist referred to his critics on Twitter as “right-wing lice.” They’re not good, decent Americans who just have some different ideas about how to make the world a better place. They run on hate. It appears their entire sense of self-worth is driven by demonizing those who disagree with them and celebrating their political viewpoints as the cardinal measurements of virtue and good character. They are positively energized by the thought of lashing out at those of us who have the audacity to think differently than they. They really do project and accuse the opposition of all their worst traits: rage, closed-mindedness, cruelty, intolerance, bigotry, and an inability to empathize with others. And they completely lack self-awareness. They are blind to the irony of their actions. As someone said on Twitter today (I can’t find the comment now), “How many of the people celebrating Andrew’s death have a ‘NO H8’ icon on their avatar?”

    If, in their minds, we’re not deserving of that respect they clamor for endlessly — if their instinct, upon seeing us mourn is to “get in our faces” (a phrase that our president once strangely used) — they really cannot be entrusted with any power. They really would do away with us if given the chance.

    Does our side have jerks? Sure. Someday, some prominent liberal will unexpectedly pass away, and someone will make some horrid, snide comment. I doubt it will be in the same volume, though I’m sure much of this is in the eye of the beholder. But I do think that if some righty says some variation of “Hooray, that lefty died suddenly! I’m so glad his wife’s now a widow and his children are fatherless,” you will see other righties denouncing that. Even if the liberal you detest most keels over tomorrow, that’s not right. No liberal voice in America deserves to have his death celebrated the way we righteously celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden. Don’t take pleasure in others’ grieving.

    We want them to grieve the political loss of the presidency, not the loss of their loved ones.

    And that pretty much sums it up, no? As I’ve been saying, they preach tolerance, then absolutely relish the opportunity to heap hatred on the dead, to spit the faces of the grieving wives and children. And why? Because the dead person had the audacity to disagree with them politically! That’s it. Breitbart didn’t fly a plane into the World Trade Center. He didn’t murder millions of Jews (which today’s left may have celebrated as well, come to think of it, given their vocal feelings toward Israel). No, his “heinous crime” was to point out the foibles of the left. In their minds, that is an unforgivable sin. In fact, daring to disagree with them on any political issue may be the only unforgivable sin, and certainly the only one worthy of a death sentence. Kill a cop? You’re a hero to be celebrated on t-shirts. Disagree with them politically? DIE, SCUM, DIE, so we can party on your grave!

    Now, as Geraghty says, this is not all liberals. But it is far too large a percentage to write off as an anomaly. The ones celebrating like this, they’re not the fringe of the ideology. These sentiments aren’t coming from the mouths, pens, and keyboards of some hack sitting in his mommy’s basement, but rather from their mainstream pundit “celebrities”. And the denunciation of such sentiments? If it truly exists — as opposed to just denouncing the fact it’s being said publicly where it can reflect poorly on the ideology rather than denouncing the fact it’s even being felt — it’s coming from the right or from lesser known lefties.

    So yes, folks, it’s very important to remember this the next time you dare to disagree with a liberal, including our lovely local examples: Once you express an opposing opinion, they don’t see you as human. They don’t see you as having any worth. You’re utter ignorant scum to them. They see you as the lowest form of life on the planet. And why? Because you don’t acknowledge the brilliance of their arguments, because you don’t fall in line and agree with every utterance from their mouths, because you won’t kiss their a*s to see their faces. And yet again, as Geraghty points out, these are the people we want to put in power?

    Ah, the lovely liberal “tolerance”. They tolerate everything… except daring to hold an opinion which differs from their own. That is a death sentence, and after you die, they’ll publicly p*ss on your body before it’s even cold, then high five one another in blogs and on social media sites.

    • Geoff Caldwell on March 2, 2012 at 10:35 am

      Well said indeed. (Be glad you’re commenting here though because when I tried to post a response of about this same length over on dwainbwain’s site he wouldn’t “allow” it saying it was “too long”. Of course the real reason was he couldn’t dispute the facts that ripped apart his post so he couldn’t dare allow it through.)
      As Breitbart said it best, the reason for polarization is not the sudden “rabid right” it is that we conservatives finally had enough and were no longer willing to sit quietly by as the left destroyed America from within.
      Now that we’re speaking out and countering their bull sh.. with actual facts and truth of what they are doing to the country they can’t stand it. They had forty years to do as they pleased and are pissed as hell that people didn’t just go along with their grand plans.
      If it wasn’t for the fact that the minion media is 90+ percent uber-liberal it wouldn’t even be a problem. Dwain could keep writing in his jammies, and the Daily Kos crowd could scream as loud as they wanted and it wouldn’t matter as they would finally be treated as the minorty they truly are.
      But instead they get portrayed as “mainstream” by the MM and there’s just enough dolts out there who only get their news from the MM to nod quietly and go along. (The recent contraception/deception just the latest. The left has wanted mandated free birth control for years, now they’ve finally figured out a way to force it on everyone and if you don’t agree you’re a “reactionary, right wing thug” who wants to take women back to back alley abortions.)
      Thinking people who actually understand the Constitution and the first amendment realize it isn’t so but on this issue we are clearly the minorty. The hype and the spin of the Dem machine wiping out any actual discussion of: “If they can mandate this, then what next? You like free birth control but do you really want to grant the government the power required to get it?”
      Nope, just the hate and twisting of the facts to further the agenda. (This last week over on the EC has been filled with that type of filth but in their world they’re heros. Sickening yes, unexpected no.)
      I’m working on a couple more columns regarding Koch industries and how Obama and the left is flat out lying in using them to solicit money. If a conservative cause did this it would be all over the minion media.
      But since there’s no Bush or Cheney the left needs a distraction and this year it’s going to be birth control and the Koch brothers. (And the dwainbwains call us small minded. UGH!!!!)

  2. Herb Van Fleet on March 2, 2012 at 1:42 pm


    I was somewhat bemused at the rhetoric here bemoaning the vicious tweets over the death of conservative lightening rod Andrew Breitbart. He was one of those guys whose hair was on fire most of the time, usually when struck by the lightening resulting from his over the top outrage at the obnoxious left. He took no prisoners and apparently loved the attention. So it should be no surprise to anyone that he is being vilified at his death.

    Bu, it is quite a leap to conclude that all the tweets shown above, except the first one, are all from leftists. He pissed a lot of people off, including, on occasion, yours truly, and many others who are not hard core right wing nuts and whose party affiliation is unknown. Another false dichotomy for the Corner.


    I liked your quote from Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt, which reads in part: “They [being a large chunk of the rank and file of the Left] run on hate. It appears their entire sense of self-worth is driven by demonizing those who disagree with them and celebrating their political viewpoints as the cardinal measurements of virtue and good character. They are positively energized by the thought of lashing out at those of us who have the audacity to think differently than they. They really do project and accuse the opposition of all their worst traits: rage, closed-mindedness, cruelty, intolerance, bigotry, and an inability to empathize with others. And they completely lack self-awareness. They are blind to the irony of their actions.” Wow, what a big fat smelly heap of paranoia! (I’ve sworn off using the “H” word on this blog since I am a guest. But I think something like “greatly exaggerated” would be a polite way to describe Mr. Geraghty’s rant.)

    Further, that excerpt from Geraghty’s “Jolt” reads as if it was taken directly from John Dean’s “Conservatives Without Conscience,” where he writes: “Conservatism has noticeably evolved from its so-called modern phase (1950-94) into what might be called a postmodern period (1994 to the present), and in doing so it has regressed to its earliest authoritarian roots. Authoritarianism is not well understood and seldom discussed in the context of American government and politics, yet it now constitutes the prevailing thinking and behavior among conservatives. Regrettably, empirical studies reveal, however, that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antIequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral. They are also often conservatives without conscience who are capable of plunging this nation into disasters the likes of which we have never known.”


    • A Nonny Moose on March 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm

      Herb, I’ll go ahead and say it for you. You’re making the accusation of hypocrisy from the right. For starters, I believe Geraghty addressed this in that letter when he states “Does our side have jerks? Sure.” He follows that, of course, by explaining that it’s quite likely that any “yeah, let’s celebrate a widow and fatherless children because that dead guy dared to disagree with me!” diatribe would be roundly criticized by the majority on the right. Did you miss that part?

      As far as Dean… seriously? John Dean as a critic of what is and is not conservative? He’s worse than David Brooks, with a slightly less impressive resume. Having been a part of the Nixon administration doesn’t make Dean an expert on what conservatives believe, unless one is making the all too common mistake of equating an (R) with conservative. Further, Geraghty’s evidence for the attitude of the left is displayed right there is black and white. Rather hard to dismiss those tweets, is it not? Rather difficult not to be thoroughly disgusted, too, is it not (unless one accepts them because they supports “their side”)? Where, then, is Dean’s “evidence”? That he thinks that’s how conservatives want to run the country? That they don’t want to run things like Nixon did (price controls, anyone? There’s a conservative idea!) so they’re obviously authoritarian? If one takes Dean as the master teacher of what is and is not conservative, then one must see David Horowitz as the be-all-end-all of what is and is not liberal today. We wouldn’t want to go there, would we?

      As far as being pissed off by Breitbart, is that supposed to be an excuse for p*ssing on his still-warm body? I get upset with pundits all the time, from both sides of the political spectrum, as there isn’t a single one I agree with 100% of the time. Does that give me carte blanche to write disgusting and nearly subhuman tweets when they die, essentially spitting in the face of their friends and family? All because I hold a differing political view than did they? Really? Mere political disagreement is a legitimate excuse for celebrating someone’s death? Because that seems to be what you’re saying here, as though you are actually trying to find an excuse for what these pathetic facsimiles of human beings wrote. I hope that I’m misreading your intent. Political disagreement is fine. It will always be with us. Are we to excuse this sort of behavior on account of it?

      No, I don’t think there’s any hypocrisy here. A vocal percentage of rather well known (at least to political junkies) self-described liberals are disgusting human beings, as evidenced by the reaction to Breitbart. There are some on the right as well, but unlike the left, who seem intent on protecting the loathsome posts, the majority of the right will shout them down. Breitbart himself said some not terribly nice things when Ted Kennedy died, and was called on it. And yet even there, saying “Ted Kennedy was a p***k” after he died is still a bit different than “Woo hoo! He’s dead! YEEEEEAAAH! The world is a better place! High FIVE!” and verbally taking a dump in his grave before he himself is even in the ground, as one example is saying “I didn’t like him when he was alive” (regrettable, but human nature) and the other is actually celebrating a death (reprehensible).

      It’s not that people didn’t like Breitbart. We all have people who aren’t particularly fans of ours. That’s fine. COntinue to not like him after he’s gone. Tell us what it was that you didn’t like about him. That’s all fair game. So no, it’s not that. It’s the unseemly glee over his death that is being exhibited. I understand that liberalism (as it is defined today) is mostly populated by immature college kids who simply don’t like any of the social constraints and mores that “The Man”, (a.k.a. a polite society) puts on them and hate being told “no” more than anything else in the world, as well as those older folks who never outgrew their late teens and will likely never grow up, but that doesn’t mean most of those social conventions are wrong or should be abandoned. We can’t fail to hold erstwhile civilized adults to account for their vile behavior and at the same time bemoan the downfall of society and question where social propriety disappeared to, can we? Why not start here?

      So here’s my opinion: Yglesias is a steaming, fetid pile of yesterday’s lunch for saying what he said, and anyone supporting him or sharing in his glee is nothing more than the undigested corn in that pile. John Dean not liking conservatives doesn’t have a lot of bearing on that. And guess what? When Yglesias dies, I can guarantee you I won’t be posting a “YEAH! FINALLY! WOO HOO!” tweet. I, for one, am better than that.

      • Herb Van Fleet on March 3, 2012 at 1:11 pm


        So here’s my deal. I look at a bunch of tweets that are cruel insulting, and insensitive to the nth degree, but yet I don’t know how representative they are of ALL tweets re Breitbart’s demise; i.e., whether they were randomly chosen, or cherry-picked for effect, or even made up. So, what I was trying to say, obviously not very well, is that extrapolating the nastiest of the nastiest to what Geoff calls, “the incivility, hate and hypocrisy of the left,” and what Geraghty calls “a large chunk of the rank and file of the Left” (their words not mine) is not justified without more information about who is tweeting what. Therefore, since the message is obviously political, it is fair game for criticism. After all, it’s the extraordinary events that make the news (usually) not the mundane.(By the way, I should make clear that I too am greatly offended by those tweets. They are inexcusable. I just think it is irresponsible to accuse the “rank and file of the Left” as the offenders.)

        The audacious Geraghty also says that (the Left) “really don’t believe that their opponents deserve anything resembling basic human dignity or respect.” Well, excuse me, I don’t think this Geraghty character knows what the hell the Left believes or doesn’t believe, much less whether they deny “basic human dignity or respect” to their opponents. I could just as easily say that the far right extremists deny basic human dignity or respect for women who use contraception. Oh, I forgot. The prince of conservative talk radio already did that. Thanks for making my point Rush.

        You begin your response by saying, “You’re making the accusation of hypocrisy from the right. For starters, I believe Geraghty addressed this in that letter when he states “Does our side have jerks? Sure.” Then in the next paragraph you say, “Geraghty’s evidence for the attitude of the left is displayed right there is black and white. Rather hard to dismiss those tweets, is it not?” Well which is it, left or right? More left than right? A lot more left than right?

        As to John Dean and company, I didn’t know you had a monopoly on what a conservative is or is not. You may not like way Dean and other more centrist Republicans criticize the far right and you can certainly do that. But I believe that, IMO, the conservative message is being drowned out by the vitriol, the anger, the hate-mongering and fear-mongering that will eventually fracture the conservative movement and render it irrelevant.


        • A Nonny Moose on March 3, 2012 at 4:55 pm

          Thank you for the clarification, Herb. I just refused to believe that you would actually be supportive of such vile posts, and I’m glad to know that you are not.

          As far as the “large chunk of the rank and file left”, I don’t believe Geraghty is guessing as to what they believe at all. I believe he’s basing his conclusion on their own words and actions, aka “evidence”. It’s either that, or the left don’t believe a word of what they’re writing, the hatefulness they spew, the ridicule and patronization they routinely engage in, and are just writing those things to get eyes. I’m not sure which of those two would be worse, but they’re both disgusting. Plus I don’t believe many writers on the left are talented enough to pull off that sort of parody for that long, so I believe they truly mean the vile things they write. I don’t believe that when someone repeatedly engages in thievery, it’s outlandish to call him a thief. I don’t believe that when someone shows a habitual pattern of lying, it’s out of line to refer to him as a liar. So when a large chunk of the rank and file left routinely behave as though anyone who doesn’t hold their political views is beneath contempt, is somehow less than human, how is it wrong to state that is what they believe?

          As far as Dean being conservative, I make no claim to being the final arbiter of what does or does not qualify. But if one uses fairly well agreed upon definitions, Dean has never been in the same ZIP code as conservative. The Nixon administration was the left-most Republican administration of the last 100 years, in my opinion, even including W. Dean is bitter that he went to “jail” (really a lawyer’s office) for a president, yet the party he thought he was supporting went right and left him behind (and how could it not go right? As I said, there wasn’t any room to go left of where Nixon was). In short, Dean is one of the last adherents to his own Ptolemaic system, with him at the center, and he views anyone to the right of him with the same visceral hatred Ptolemaics viewed Copernicans in the Middle Ages. Their righteous indignation did not ultimately make them correct, however. And neither is Dean. I don’t believe Dean drifted leftward. I believe he is the same person he has always been, politically (i.e. a liberal), but the masquerade of a “Republican” finally wore off.

          As for any anger, well hell yes, there is anger. The right — that is to say conservatives, who make up the plurality of this country, by the way — is fed up with the stuff like what we saw from Yglesias being acceptable to the left, or at least greeted with navel gazing and tacit approval. They’re tired of being told they’re heartless and greedy because they want to keep some of what they earn and decide for themselves who is worthy of their help and charity. They’re tired of the tiny minority who identify themselves as liberals placing themselves on pedestals and believing they have a right to dictate to others how they should live their lives, what they must accept and what they must reject. They’re tired of the condescension, the patronization, the denigration, the arrogance, the “we know how to run your life better than you do, so just shut up and do as we say, hick” attitude that permeates the far left. They’ve taken it with silence and the occasional rolling of the eyes for ever so long, like a parent will indulge a precocious child that thinks it knows everything there is to know and controls the world. But as such children are wont to do, that tiny minority has pushed too far, what with the health care bill (now $111 billion more expensive than we were told to when they first lied to us about it! Woo hoo!), attacks on religious liberty, insinuations and outright accusations of racism if there is even a hint of a disagreement with Obama policy, etc. We gave them inch after inch, and they now feel entitled to several miles. We feel it’s time this tiny little minority gets spanked and put to bed. But again, just like children, they seem intent with this administration to break as many things as they can before mommy or daddy corral them. Is that not supposed to make us angry? When little Barack, Harry, Nancy, Chuckie, etc. are over in the corner lighting the curtain on fire and throwing gasoline on the carpet, are we supposed to say “oh, you kids, Ha, ha, ha!”? Or should we finally decide that someone needs to be the adult in the room, spank ’em, take away the matches, and start cleaning up the room?

          So no, I’m not going to argue that the right isn’t angry. Rather I’m going to say that it’s a necessary anger, and it’s amazing how controlled that anger is. Crap like Yglesias’ childish post shows that a time-out may not be enough punishment this time.

          The Rush thing is for another blog post, but seriously, how does one spend $1000 a year on contraceptives? If condoms are a buck apiece, I’m not sure even Wilt Chamberlain could have spent that. Just how much sex is she having, for crying out loud? And — and this is the big thing — why is her promiscuity something you and I should have to pay for, or that a Catholic university insurance plan should have to pay for? Shouldn’t she have at least some fiscal responsibility for apparently *%&^#$ everything with two legs? Heck, I like beer. I think the government should have to pay for my beer, because the beer I like is more expensive than most, and that’s not fair.

          And that’s absolutely all I’ll say about that here.


September 2021
« Jul