“Deplorables:” The Bigotry Behind the Impeachment Attempt

Free Market of Ideas

GLENN MCCOY © Belleville News-Democrat. Dist. By UNIVERSAL UCLICK. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Anti-cop Bigotry at Loyola University New Orleans

From Heatstreet:

Josh Collins, a sheriff’s sergeant in New Orleans, attends classes at Loyola University when he is not working. This week, one of his professors called the police on Collins himself — apparently because he showed up in class wearing his uniform, which freaked out one of the other students.

His professor then called the police, but Collins says he was “not privileged to either of these conversations as they took place behind my back.” His professor then approached him and informed him that they had called the police, but the police never came because Collins was perfectly within the law.

Collins, who works in the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, points out in his Facebook post that it is incredibly ironic that the reaction to being scared of a police officer is to call the police. He also writes that “as a police officer, I feel as though I must hide my profession in order to obtain a fair education.”

The Facebook post is below, and note how much bigotry he has to tolerate at a supposedly Catholic university. But most “Catholic universities” these days are no more tolerant that secular ones, and indeed probably less tolerant, on average.

Update

The professor who called the police when a uniformed cop entered the class is apparently Jonathan Peterson.

He is the only member of the Loyola Philosophy faculty identified as teaching “Law and Morality.”

Further, his contact information has disappeared from the list of Loyola Philosophy faculty.

We e-mailed him to ask for his account of what happened, and he did not respond.

Further Update

Loyola has reportedly apologized to the student, and come out with a statement in support of law enforcement.  According to Loyola, Collins was wearing fatigues, and not a standard police uniform, and was carrying a gun.  This might have contributed to the “misunderstanding.”  Of course, his comments about anti-white and anti-police bigotry are based on more than this incident.

More

Loyola has claimed that Collins was in “fatigues” raising the possibility that students did not know he was a police officer. But in fact, his uniform clearly identified him as a SWAT team member and employee of the Sheriff’s office. It was not just “fatigues” that anybody could wear.

The Arizona Shootings, Sarah Palin and the Tolerant, Compassionate Left

Twitter Users Wish Death on Sarah Palin from JoeKenha on Vimeo.

Palin Derangement Syndrome: Canadian Version

If the video is not embedded above, click this link.

Liberal Blogs More Profane

From Matthew Sheffield at the Washington Times:

Are liberals more profane than conservatives? Online, the answer seems to be yes. Profanity, those taboo words banned from the broadcast airwaves, is a feature of many people’s daily lives. It’s much less so in the establishment media world. TV and radio broadcasts are legally prohibited from using it, most newspapers (including this one) have traditionally refrained from its usage.

That’s not the case with the Web, where bloggers and readers face no such restrictions. That likely comes as no surprise; what may be surprising, however, is to what degree profanity seems to be a feature more common on one side of the political blogosphere than the other.

Which side is that? For answers, I turned to the search engine Google to see how common swearing is in the right and left blog universes by looking up the late stand-up comic George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” in the most popular blog communities.

The results showed that online liberals tend to use profanity a lot more than online conservatives.

Searching for Mr. Carlin’s seven words and some popular variants at the top 10 conservative Web communities yields about 70,000 results. That is dwarfed in comparison to the 1.9 million instances of profanity on liberal sites.

Things aren’t quite that clear-cut, however, since some Web sites have more pages than others. According to Google, the top 10 conservative sites have about 6 million pages, while the top 10 liberal sites have about 13 million.

Dividing the number of instances of profanity by the number of pages of the sites on which they appear, then multiplying the result by 100 yields what might be called a “profanity quotient.”

The top 10 liberal sites (Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Crooks and Liars, Think Progress, Atrios, Greenwald, MyDD and Firedoglake) have a profanity quotient of 14.6.

The top 10 conservative sites (Free Republic, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs, Townhall, NewsBusters, Lucianne.com, Wizbang, Ace of Spades, Red State and Volokh Conspiracy) have a quotient of 1.17.

That’s quite a disparity. Liberals are more than 12 times likely to use profanity than conservatives on the Web.

The interesting question, of course, is whether this is merely a superficial matter of style, or whether it’s a question of fundamental character.

There is plenty of evidence of a deep seated nastiness on the part of the left, and shown by its reaction to the death of Tony Show, or British leftists reacting to the prospect of Margaret Thatcher’s death. Indeed, the bigotry of the Huffington Post has been reported right here.

The kind of vulgarity used on leftist blogs betrays a fundamental contempt for the sensibilities of others. That’s because those “others” are thought to be morally and intellectually inferior, and therefore fair game.

British Left Looking Forward to Margaret Thatcher’s Death

While the left vilified Tony Snow on his death, the leftists in the U.K. are looking forward to the death of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the same sort of raw hatred, and Lady Thatcher isn’t dead yet!

From the Daily Mail:

The Letters page of The Guardian, seldom the sanest of arenas, has this week descended to virulent venom.

In place of the customary corduroyed bores calling for unilateral disarmament, rainbow-nation multiculturalism or celebrations of Castro’s Cuba, there have appeared several letters which gloated at the prospect of Margaret Thatcher’s death.

Their vengeful tone, though hurtful about the still very much alive Lady Thatcher, has been instructive. It was a timely reminder that no one does viciousness quite like the Left. Far from the Conservatives being ‘the Nasty Party’, Labour’s preachy brothers and sisters have long deserved that title.

The author, Quentin Letts, then goes on about a lot of issues that are pretty obscure to Americans. But then he quotes some of the nasty rhetoric, which Americans can understand very well.

I don’t care what method people use to celebrate the fact that the bitch is dead. But for most people it will be a celebration. Dancing on her grave? Too bloody right, I will.

yeractual, Guardian online.

A 19-GUN salute? Only if they were all aimed at her.

imasmadashell, Guardian online.

I rather like the suggestion that whatever happens she is going to be buried at sea, by the time everyone has finished p***ing on her grave...

greymatter, Guardian online.

State funeral! She should be burned at the stake!

4danglier, Guardian online.

Thatcher should be allowed a state funeral only if the contract is put out to compulsory competitive tender and awarded to the lowest bidder. Any offers?

Rob Watling, Guardian newspaper.

‘The country owes her a 19-gun salute.’ Yeah, but we’re not cruel, she can have a blindfold as well!

BurgermaS, Guardian online.

I liken Thatcher’s rule to a surgeon finding gangrene in the little toe and amputating above the knee.

Green Lake, Guardian online.

The reminder that Charles Darwin received a state funeral underlines the grossly offensive nature of the proposal that Mrs Thatcher should be similarly honoured. Darwin’s magnificent insight liberated and broadened our thinking. Thatcher’s offensive bigotry destroyed much that was good in our society, narrowing our vision.

John Baker, Guardian newspaper.

A state funeral would be a farce. But how about nationwide street parties or perhaps auctioning coffin nails? I’d pay good money to hammer the lid down.

Ifweworkers, Guardian online.

The headline ‘State funeral planned for Lady Thatcher’ is deeply irresponsible. When it appeared, I honestly thought that the week had got off to the best possible start.

Chris Gibson, Guardian newspaper.

I’ll be there protesting and throwing eggs even if they promise to extraordinarily rendition me. Never. It’d be a crime to honour this self-serving, divisive politician who governed with minority support and who created the s*** we live in today. She did more to destroy ‘the family’ than a hundred Roy Jenkins ever could. No, no, no. Just throw some petrol on the corpse, chuck a match and let the wind do the rest.

bass46, Guardian online.

Just a couple of questions: ‘Does that include the grave/dancefloor combo?’ and ‘When is it booked for?’

Chris Hardman, Guardian newspaper.

I’d go along with it on three conditions: 1) The son Mark is stripped of his hereditary baronetcy. He has done nothing to deserve it and everything to lose it. 2) We can get it over with as soon as possible. Friday week would be good for me. 3) We do a special offer (Buy One Get One Free) with the current Prime Minister. The fact that both of them are still breathing should be no obstacle.

EastFinchleyite, Guardian online.

Announcing the Great Thatcher Awayday. On the day of her state funeral, I’ll book the Eurostar and Guardian readers are cordially invited to join me in Brussels to toast her passing with great Belgian beer. The famous bar Morte Subite (Sudden Death) will make a good starting point.

Roger Protz, Guardian newspaper.

She deserves the admiration and respect of every exploiter and authoritarian in the world.

Gegenbeispiel, Guardian online.

Since Thatcher is loathed and despised by a large proportion of UK citizens, may we suggest that her state funeral takes place at Port Stanley, where presumably her popularity remains undiminished?

Lucy Birot, Peter Mackridge and Jackie Willcox, Oxford, Guardian newspaper.

I cannot believe that I am alone in feeling total disgust that there are plans to honour Margaret Thatcher with a state funeral. I would also take issue with the view that she ‘reversed the decline in Britain’s post-war fortunes’. The fact that No 10 appears to have condoned the plans sums up how bankrupt this government has become.

Dr Terry Allcott, Guardian newspaper.

When Margaret Thatcher was Minister for Education, she took away free milk from schoolchildren. I created the slogan ‘Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher’ and put it on a wanted poster with her picture. When she became prime minister, we
wrote to her from the Chiswick Women’s Aid refuge and asked her what she would do for victims of domestic violence. A minion replied on her behalf and said that she was ‘not interested in women’s issues’. A state funeral would be an insult to this nation.

Erin Pizzey, Guardian newspaper.

Give her a nice marble tomb — in the shape of a public toilet.

anstruther, New Statesman online

State funeral? A televised public execution would be far, far too good for her.

RoyalFamily, Guardian online.

There should be a nationwide procession so the public can show their appreciation by throwing anything they like at her — and I do mean anything.

Carl Jones, New Statesman online.

I hope she lives long enough to see her son go to prison for his crimes in Africa. I hope she lives long enough to see ‘actual’ democracy come in the UK in the form of electronic democracy and local communities. I hope she lives long enough to see the mass ownership of companies by the people (not the feudal few). I hope she lives long enough to see Britain stop being the Americans’ poodle, and I hope she lives long enough to see the ‘New Labour project’ overturned by some REAL social democrats. Then I hope she comes back as a poor child in the Third World.

gnuneo, New Statesman online.

Why waste money when half the country will be having a party to celebrate her demise, anyway?

NemesistheWarlock, Guardian online.

Where’s she being buried? We could graffiti her tombstone.

RosaLuxemburgII, New Statesman online.

Letts concluded:

One of the Left’s great propaganda achievements over the years has been the idea that it was somehow kinder to support Labour than to be Conservative.

Think a little harder, though, and you may start to see that Left’s attitude depends on the suppression of tolerance.

It demands communal conformity rather than independent freedom. It seeks to dictate supply rather than allowing the market to find a level. It places the state above the citizen.

Here are the philosophical roots of the harshness of discipline which fuel the unpleasantness. Those Guardian letters spring directly from Left-wing orthodoxy. It is hard to imagine any Conservative worth that name rejoicing at the death of a Labour opponent. The Tory instinct does not work like that.

Gay Fascism on Campus: Livid Lesbians Shut Up Speaker They Dislike

From World Net Daily:

Rioting lesbians have stormed a speech by “Born Gay Hoax” author Ryan Sorba on the campus of Smith College in Massachusetts, shutting down his address, according to two major pro-family organizations, Americans for Truth and Mass Resistance.

“Beware lesbians with frying pans (if you care about free speech),” AFT said in his announcement. “Lesbian activists at Smith College just couldn’t stand by and let a young critic explain his views about the supposed innateness of homosexuality – so they stormed Ryan Sorba’s speech on the ‘Born Gay Hoax’ and forced him to end it prematurely.”

“Thus they decided for everyone in the room – supporters, foes, the curious and the undecided – whether Sorba’s arguments would be heard. Stalin would be proud,” said AFT’s Peter LaBarbera.

Shouts of “We’re here, we’re queer, Get used to it!” combined with various shrieks and screams punctuate the protests.

With police officers standing idly by, a homosexual protest leader takes the microphone and orders, “They have told us to leave, so everyone needs to stay.”

While security officers are shown doing nothing to eject the mob, Sorba is told to leave the room.

You can watch videos of what happened here.

If the actions of these bigoted leftists are not appalling enough, even worse are the people who support them.

Consider, for example, a blog called “Pam’s House Blend,” which is populated by this sort of people.

The title of her post is “Smith College students give ‘Born Gay Hoax’ author a piece of their minds” -- an absurd euphemism.

Pam, in an update, backs away a bit from endorsing the Nazi behavior the the Smith lesbians, but her commenter have no such compunctions. One said, for example:

Personally I don’t see a problem with the protest. In fact, I think we need more of such actions these days, as long as they are not physically violent. I’m as big a fan of free speech protection as the next person. But what would the rightful reaction on campus have been if the speaker were someone plugging a book saying the Holocaust never really happened? Or one promoting the KKK? I don’t see a problem disrupting hate speech which is ultimately responsible for horrific events like the murder of Lawrence King.

Of course, this person would never object to a speaker saying that the U.S. government invented AIDs to kill black people, or that Dick Cheney planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. Apparently she is OK with free speech if the speaker doesn’t say anything “really bad.”

And she and her friends get to decide what is “really bad.”

Another poster:

I do not like being measured as wanting by a conservative Republican college student who gets to preach bad science, a single biblical interpretive viewpoint and who arrogantly expects not to be challenged on trying to cut the basis of our citizenship out from under us.

This is very standard thinking on the part of the politically correct crowd on campus. What they “do not like” must be banned. What they consider “bad science” must be banned. A “single biblical interpretive viewpoint” (unless it is their own) must be banned.

Another, even more chilling comment comes from a poster who is proud to have shut up a speaker.

When I was an undergrad at New Mexico Tech in the late 80’s we had a “Faith Healer” (forget who, but Benny Hinn comes to mind) who wanted to hold his revival on campus in our auditorium. NMT is strictly science oriented and the vast majority of students and professors joined together to protest the upcoming event as being contrary to our educational agenda of fact-based instruction.

As a result, the on-campus event was cancelled and moved to an off-campus location. HOWEVER, we continued the protest and got the Townies involved as well. Socorro has two primary populations: 1) The College, students & professors, fairly liberal; and 2) The Townies, Hispanic, very Catholic, conservative. Needless to say, it wasn’t hard to get the everyone worked up against a non-Catholic and he ended up just cancelling his appearance in town all together.

It was totally peaceful, we did not silence him or prevent him from coming to town, but we did drown him out and let him know that we were not going to stand by quietly to let him spread his fraudulent propaganda on our campus or in our town.

New Mexico Tech is a state university, and speakers have the full rights of the U.S. Constitution (unlike Marquette, which has the legal right to shut up faith healers, or pro-abortion speakers, if it wants). So demanding that the college cancel the speech was a direct attack on the Constitution.

Notice how the woman in question is bragging about the fact that she and her leftist friends could exploit anti-Protestant religious bias.

One has every right to say faith healing is nonsense, but it’s hardly hate speech. It’s just something that secular liberals don’t believe in.

(It would be interesting if Marquette banned a faith healer, since the Catholic Church has a rite of exorcism. But then, Marquette might insist that Protestants can’t be faith healers.)

There is, of course, plenty of this sort of intolerance in Wisconsin.

A local liberal blogger (“Wallah”) found it “encouraging” that students at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee tried to disrupt a speech by David Horowitz.

And students at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point vandalized an anti-abortion display on that campus.

This folks, is the campus left in 2008, with a festering hatred for ideas they disagree with, and a fascist willingness to shut up those ideas.

Anti-Abortion Display Vandalized at University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

From a news release from Wisconsin Right to Life:

Pointers for Life is a right-to-life group at UW-Stevens Point whose leader is funded by Wisconsin Right to Life.

It what they deemed a moving visual demonstration of abortion in America, Pointers set up a Cemetery of Innocents display on campus consisting of 4,000 crosses to depict the number of human lives lost each day to abortion.

Overnight, the display was vandalized with crosses slashed and broken. As several Pointers’ members were repairing the display, a group of displeased students, led by student Senator Roderick King, began to yell at them and debate with them. They demanded to know who authorized the cross project.

Not satisfied with answers, King and his friends began pulling hundreds of crosses from the ground and tossing them away. Pointers then called Protective Services, knowing their project had been properly approved.

King claimed that Pointers for Life had “no right” to display the crosses and that it was “his duty as a paying student” to take it down. “The freedom of speech does not cover these signs and symbols,” he claimed. When Protective Services stepped in, King’s friends stopped but King continued until he was informed that unless he ceased, he would have to pay for the damages.

The Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs eventually restored order. Pointers for Life submitted a complaint to the student association, asking that King resign or be disciplined.

“We wonder what caused such intolerance and disrespect,” said Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. “It is hard to understand why a group of white crosses would trigger such an extreme response from King.”

Checking he Wausau Daily Herald, we find that the news release is correct and accurate.

Indeed, there is a video on YouTube (see below).

As always, the fascists on a contemporary college campus are on the left.



[Update]

From the Huffington Post, apparently the UW-Stevens Point has punished the leftist vandal, although they invoke privacy laws and won’t reveal what the punishment is.

Leftie Blogger Applauds Disruption of Speech at UWM

Liberals used to at least pretend that they believed in free speech. But they seldom bother any more.

Example: “Whallah!,” a blog started for the sole purpose of stalking Jessica McBride, deals with a blog post from Patrick McIlheran about how a speech from David Horowitz at UWM was disrupted by leftist and Islamic students. According to McIlheran:

The encouraging part is this, and you’ll see it about two-thirds of the way through: “University officials ordered metal detectors and a security force of a more than dozen burly officers and staffers for the event. I didn’t count how many individuals had to be ejected during my remarks but there were many,” he writes.

McIlheran finds this encouraging because UWM protected Horowitz’ right to speak. Some might consider it deplorable that people who disagree with Horowitz tried to shut him up.

But not Whallah. He opines:

Why is that encouraging, you may ask? Because it shows there is a growing number of people that see through the lies of the righties. It also shows that there is growing discontent with the way that things are going in this country, and that more and more people are ready to correct the course we are on.

That’s right.

He finds it “encouraging” that people tried to shout down and disrupt the talk of a speaker with whom he disagrees.

Local Lefty Blogger Lacks Any Sense of Irony

From Whallah!, a post that shows how a lot of lefties just can’t see their own behavior in any sort of objective light.

This site is obviously going to have some highly emotionally charged topics as it confronts the lies, the hypocrisies and the foibles of the local right wing media. This leads people to become very angry from time to time, and can cause commenting without thought.During the past week, I’ve had to eliminate two comments that went over the line in personal attacks. One was directed at McBride, one was at Fischer. The last time I had to remove a comment was during the IT affair. Four in the time I’ve been on my throne is not bad, but I do not want this to become a habit.

So far, so good. He’s insisting on some standards.

But then we have this immediately following:

I realize how tempting it is to become personal when writing about these people. It is also very difficult to exercise self-control, when those on the right do not. They will often vilify us, call us names, and make things very personal. But, this does not excuse us from our own behaviors.

Just as I do not hold terrorists to the standard that I judge my behavior, I do not hold these right wing hatemongers as a standard with which to use as a comparison. Because they choose to make base, false, and abusive comments, we do not need to stoop to their level.

He doesn’t get it.

He just doesn’t get it.

[Update]

A commenter to the post on Wallah! adds the following:

With their breezy, unknowingly transparent disregard for the least powerful, and with the bile they use to demonize anyone in opposition to their minority views, the members of the rightist chattering class have certainly earned any bad words that might come their way. I am of the opinion that they earned yet more than that.

But I guess I get it: No need to get into a p--ing contest with skunks.

This is a slightly different argument than that in the main post. This fellow is saying that conservatives deserve to be reviled.

This from the open-minded and tolerant liberal-left.

Raw Anti-Christian Bigotry

From the website of famous atheist Richard Dawkins:

Dawkins reproduces a manifesto from a blog called the Christian OUT.

Some typical excerpts:

We need to realize that we should be reaching out to people with true compassion and sincerity, minus the pious pharisaical cloaks; to both the saved and the lost. We need to reach out in support to our fellow Christians that are new or struggling, to give support and love through their trials, tribulations, and times of growth as a Christian; to be understanding, yet Scriptural, with a kind heart. We need also to reach out to this lost world with the saving gospel of Jesus Christ, remembering to not find it uncommon if by chance the lost person chooses to reject God and the Scriptures, to our dismay. We should not allow their rejection of it to be taken personally, but to be brought to God in prayer for their soul’s need of salvation.

We need to realize that it is necessary for a Christian to personally speak out against sin. We need to speak out against the sin in our own lives and other professing Christians, and also when we are confronted with sin by family, friends, and co-workers. At the same time we are first to examine the beam in our own eye before pointing out the dust in our neighbor’s eye. The dust in another’s eye does not make us more righteous, nor does looking around the beam in our own eye. In contrast, we also need to speak out concerning the truth, morality, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Even when it is uncomfortable, we are to be true to Scripture and obedient to God, therefore calling good “good” and evil “evil.” Remember we are to speak and do that which is right because it is right, out of obedience to God, not for personal prestige, gain, or that we should be puffed up while others are put down, causing our pride to be lifted up causing us to fall into sin.

We needn’t be so timid or worldly that no one knows that we are a child of God, yet we must refrain from the pitfall of legalism whereby we judge the whole world by our personal moral code brow beating and demanding the lost world or fellow Christians to conform to a system that is above even that which Scripture calls for.

How do the commenters respond?

With an outpouring of naked anti-Christian bigotry. Readers can go to the comments section and peruse them.

But a warning: if you are a Christian, you are going to feel like a black guy at a Klan rally.

Of course, one can expect anti-Christian people to frequent richarddawkins.net.

But the comments aren’t that different from opinions expressed in the liberal blogosphere in Wisconsin. Check particularly Hermes’ Journeys and Illusory Tenant.

The secular leftists, of course, are not merely anti-religion. You won’t hear them say much bad about Islam. They simply have a particular grudge against Christians.

Leftist Bigotry Toward American Soldiers

Via Sykes Writes, an obsurdly nasty and offensive cartoon about American soldiers serving in Iraq.

You can click on the image to see a larger version.

More Hate Speech in the Leftist Blogosphere

Well, Illusory Tenant has finally gotten it though his head that you don’t call a female blogger (Jessica McBride in this case), the “C word.”

The the anonymous but very hateful fellow who runs Hermes’ Journeys isn’t about to do anything so wimpish as refrain from showing how much he hates those who disagree with his political views.

Let it known throughout the blogosphere that I, Hermes, the veritable Messenger of the Gods, declare Jessica McBride to be a conniving, confused, and consummately clueless conservative who is hurting women everywhere by pretending to have an understanding of feminism. Illusory Tenant was justified in using the definition of the word to mean an unpleasant or stupid person in describing her, for she is an embarrassment to educated women everywhere. Furthermore, Charlies Sykes is a laughable twit and Rush Limbaugh is a closeted homosexual pig of a man who wouldn’t know what a c-word was if he could pull his head out of his own pompous ass long enough to stop hating school and read something other than the Bible. But that would entail focusing on something other than how vainglorious his own ignorant, uneducated, loathsome existence has become, which is understandably impossible for someone as arrogant and contumacious as Rush’s swollen, bloated, gay, vapid, incomprehensible and downright stupid personality has made him.

You see, this is the party of tolerance and diversity. So it’s fine for them to hate people who disagree with them.