Talking Points Memo Witchhunt for any Gay Offense

Even Uncle Joe thinks that Media Matters and friends are going "too far."
Even Uncle Joe thinks that Media Matters and friends are going “too far.”



TPM has been attacking fellow leftist Ezra Klein for starting Vox and hiring someone who once wrote about Liberty University and also wrote a defense of Duck Dynasty.

Because, clearly, if Klein had known about either article, not only should he have made clear to tell openly-gay 23 year old writer Brandon Ambrosino that he shouldn’t write that kind of stuff at Vox, which would be censorship, or that he should apologize for what he once wrote, which would be censorship, or that they should fire Ambrosino, which would be censorship, but Klein needs to explain why he even hired him in the first place.

Being a media entity now means that proper due diligence in hiring anyone is vetting them for any past offense against the organized gay media pundits, aka “Big Gay.”

You know things are over the top for Big Gay when even the Huffington Post is defending Ambrosino. But Media Matters is always on the attack.

EPA Chief On Gifts From Alaskans: “I Threw The F—ing Thing Away”

Eric Engman/News-Miner
EPA Chief, Gina McCarthy during her visit to Alaska. (Eric Engman/News-Miner)   (News

Class.  Not every person whose famous, or in a position of power, is blessed with it.  In the case of EPA Chief, Gina McCarthy, she isn’t even on the same planet when it comes to being ‘classy’.

Case in point. According to an article on News, in an article published earlier this month in the Wall Street Journal, she had some not so nice things to say about some of the  gifts she received while on her trip to Alaska:

FAIRBANKS—Environmental Protection Agency Chief Gina McCarthy is being criticized by Alaska officials for two disparaging comments she made about Interior Alaska in a recent Wall Street Journal article.

The Journal article, “Rare Detente: New EPA Chief and Industry,” focused mostly on McCarthy’s ability to find relative harmony between the regulatory agency and energy companies, citing specifically her unrelentingly forthright nature.

In the story, McCarthy told a Wall Street Journal reporter earlier this month that she had been surprised by the government’s strict ethics regulation regarding the acceptance of gifts, going on to ridicule two gifts in particular she received while visiting the Interior in August.

The story said she remarked how officials chased her down for accepting a small North Pole pin someone gave her at an event — “I threw the f—ing thing away,” she said she told them) — and for receiving a jar of moose meat that “could gag a maggot.” The moose meat was given by a little girl during a hearing, the story said.

North Pole Mayor Bryce Ward, who said he was the “someone” who gave McCarthy the pin, took issue with the EPA chief’s brusque dismissal of his gift and called for an apology.

To read more go Here.


NY Assistant Professor: Misinformation About Climate Change Should Be A Criminal Offense

(Huffington Post)

The First Amendment.   It’s an important part of the Constitution that protects, among other things, Free Speech and that’s something that Progressive left only protects if you’re saying something they agree with.

Case in point.  According to an article on The, Lawrence Torcello, an Assistant Professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York, says that spreading misinformation about Climate Change should be considered a criminal offense:

We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.

Worried that Mr. Torcello’s suggestion might violate the First Amendment?  Well he isn’t:

My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.

You can read the rest of the article Here.

Mariame Kaba: Pot Legalization is Racist

These eyebrows aren't even my final form...

These eyebrows aren’t even my final form…

In an article titled, “The Unbearable Whiteness of Legalization” by Rebecca Burns in the publication “In These Times” Mariame Kaba of the non-profit Project NIA trots out the familiar hobby horse of leftists, the cause of their eternal hate, the bane of their existence: white people.

Reading Kaba’s bio is quite an impressive career of hating men and hating whitey. Kaba also once described the black incarceration rate as a “slow-moving Holocaust.”

Here is what Kaba said in the interview:

“Another concern is whether, as the prices of marijuana start climbing [because of legalization] and [poor] people turn to using other kinds of drugs, those drugs then get painted as the worst possible drugs on the planet. The people who are doing the “worst” drugs somehow always happen to be the most marginalized people within our culture. That’s why it’s so important that we focus on uprooting the whole architecture of the War on Drugs. If we’re not talking about the root issues of racism and classism, there are bound to be unintended consequences.”

Another option might be, you know, not doing drugs.

Lynn Parramore/Alternet: Libertarianism Causes “Epic Ripoffs”

I did a search for "Lynn Parramore" and this is what came up. I report, you decide.

I did a search for “Lynn Parramore” and this is what came up: I report, you decide. I’m pretty sure I dated this chick for a while before she became a Women’s Studies major.

Lynn Parramore, writing at Alternet, concludes a rambling essay against libertarianism by saying it causes “Epic Ripoffs” because it causes inequality. This came as a surprise to absolutely no one, in that people are born with different skills and different traits. It’s the kind of inequality that libertarians are okay with, you know the kind that lets women earn 104 cents for every 100 cents a man makes.

But Parramore can’t stop herself, she writes with the fervency of a shrill government stooge ten minutes before a grant filing deadline: “In the healthcare industry, as well as a dizzying array of other areas, like housing markets, energy market, labor markets, financial services markets, and perhaps most frighteningly, capital markets in which money sloshes through a global system extracting wealth through out-of-control instruments like derivatives, markets fail spectacularly. Regulation is the only way to fix these glaring market failures. Just leaving everything to the market, as libertarians recommend, is often guaranteed to produce epic ripoffs.”

I’d be interested to hear where she thinks things were ever left “to the market.”

The problem with her article is that her level of stupid throughout is so compressed and well-packed, that literally every sentence might be the stupidest thing you’ve ever read. It’s a stunning display of economic and historical ignorance, which has already generated 889 comments, mostly by libertarian fanboys dropping h-bombs of facts on Parramore, but like the T-1000, she’s impervious to facts. In fact she just keeps repeating the same tired arguments to the extent where she should be called Parrotmore.

Most of her arguments mirror a personal argument I had in middle school with fellow 12 year olds about the nature of government. I figured a Ph.D in English and Cultural Theory would have reduced the quality of her argument down to elementary school, but Parramore surprised me by using a few obscure anecdotes. After all she talks about the railroads having a monopoly in the 19th century. As if libertarians have never discussed or thought about the issue, ever, ever.

Here’s the fundamental problem: the left is incapable of understanding or empathizing with their opponents. That and they clearly never read any of the material produced by the other side. Read “The Righteous Mind” by Jon Haidt to see this theory discussed in detail.

Parrotmore just keeps giving truly inane arguments about “libertarianism” as if it’s some monolithic belief structure. She reduces it to, “I hate poor people and taxes, so I’ll stop paying taxes to help poor people, and profit!” Here’s a few gems from Parrotmore:

“The truth is actually this: Many a rich person gets wealthy just by being born to wealthy parents.”
Demonstrably false. She has a cop out here by having written “many” and so, she implies a lot, but hey, maybe “many” is really contextually just two out of a million. And what’s “wealthy” after all? Is “middle class” being born to “wealthy” parents? Lesson to learn here: never trust the writings of an English major. But just for grins, let’s show that Parrotmore is false again.

“Bankers committed massive fraud on mortgage loans leading up to the financial crisis, and continue a crime spree which includes laundering money for terrorists and drug cartels, rate-rigging, manipulating the prices of commodities, taking bribes, engaging in insider trading, participating in ponzi schemes, cooking the books, and so on. Fraud has grown so pervasive in corporate America that legendary short seller Jim Chanos describes a culture in which executives think they have a fiduciary duty to cheat.”
Parramore has apparently seen Pacino in “Scarface” a few too many times.

“Beyond the blatant crimes, bankers are engaging far more in reckless speculation that destabilizes the economy than doing useful things like lending money to people who need it. Put simply, they make a great deal of money looting the economy through cheating taxpayers and screwing customers with fees and tricks. Result: Bankers get very rich, while the rest of us get poorer.”
I don’t think Lynn understands what banks do. At all. And to be sure, many big banks are horrible institutions, and most of those are ones who have a symbiotic relationship with the government. To say that libertarians are pro-big-bank is completely wrong. Banks are one of the most regulated industries of all times. Even during the supposed Obama economic recovery, there were recent years where not a single new bank opened. Is that possible if there’s low regulation and banksters are allowed to launder Tony Montana’s drug money for obscene profits all the time?

And hey, I could regurgitate her article all day long, but she’s just a ridiculously simplistic statist.

Here’s her basic argument: Libertarians are wrong because of 1) inequality, 2) public goods, 3) regulation. Yet no libertarian on the planet claims libertarianism is a perfect utopian heaven, all the problems of human nature will still remain. Inequality is measured by either results or opportunity, and to create equal results requires coercion and force, which they reject. Public goods can be funded by private sources, not just streetlights but sometimes even entire highways. She then talks about the need for regulation by talking about how unregulated the automotive industry was.

Argument run-down

What’s going on here is that progressives are scared of Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul. They see a devoted group of idealistic young followers and they can’t wait to crush that hope with cynicism. Libertarianism may have its legitimate critiques and complaints, but Parramore isn’t capable of even understanding them. So she doesn’t offer any subtlety or nuance in her article, she just gives these broad brush critiques of libertarianism to prevent closed-minded Alternet readers from even trying to engage the issues. She knows better, but she’s writing from fear and ignorance.

For many years libertarians liked to believe that they were immune to attacks from the left, and that it was only the establishment GOP that was so traditional and backwards that caused the media to hate them so. But the recent few years and the incessant irrational attacks on libertarianism should show that the left hates them just as much. If your ideas are a threat to the left’s power, you’re going to be attacked. It’s business and it’s personal. Thus for Parramore all libertarians are riding “theoretical unicorns” instead of just having a different view of state power.

You either believe in people, or you believe in planners. You either believe in spontaneous order, or in central planners to accomplish good things. You either believe in freedom, or you believe in coercive state power. Parramore believes in the latter and ought to try reading a real libertarian book or talking to a real live libertarian before just repeating the same tired arguments against libertarians in the future.

Watch As Obama Fesses Up To His Biggest Lie Yet

March 14 – President Obama comes to the same conclusions that everyone else did years ago. In an interview, Obama finally admitted that he was lying to the American people when he said, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

Watch the interview here

In a somber tone, fully aware of his own vitriolic hypocrisy, the President begrudgingly told the country that “they’re gonna have to make some choices, and they might have to switch doctors.” While this revelation didn’t come as a surprise to anyone, it was a remarkable sight to see the President admit it.

Obama tries to salvage himself by saying people might make this switch to save money. However, it begs the question, why would switching doctors now suddenly save people money? The answer is that the Present’s signature Health Care plan, Obamacare, is raising people’s premium’s and medical costs to the point where they can no longer afford the health insurance they were happy with before the implementation of his disastrous plan.

If you’ve ever wondered what an administration imploding into itself looks like, this is it. Obama has lost a significant amount of support from the left over his dogmatic obsession with Obamacare, and it appears that even the President himself is starting to loose faith. Obama finally admitted something that every critically thinking person in the country knew: Obamacare will not only mean your healthcare costs will skyrocket, but it will force you to change doctors and plans.

Sycophantic Obama supporters love to try and mock those who have fought restlessly to repeal Obamacare. They look at the dozens of attempts to repeal the bill and argue that we should just give up, the people have spoken and they want Obamacare. This position is becoming more and more difficult to hold as even the President seems to be giving up any high expectations for his health care law. The Administration has delayed all major parts of Obamacare until well after the President’s term has ended, and undoubtedly will blame something along the lines of improper implementation when the bill inevitably savages the country.

Obama concludes his remarks by saying that Americans will have to make a decision as to, “what’s right for your family.” Instead, the President should have taken the initiative to do what’s right for American families, and resigned on the spot after firing his would be successors.

Follow the author on Facebook or on Twitter @PatVKane

Millionaire Actor Unhappy With Minimum Wage

Chicago- Actor Martin Sheen joined forces with Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to lobby for a higher minimum wage. In his speech to a packed room at a South Side Church, Sheen cited Pope Francis and his Catholic faith as a reason for raising the minimum wage.

Sheen argues that the minimum wage is, “far less a political issue than a moral one.” Currently, Illinois mandates that employers pay at least $8.25 an hour to workers. Despite the fact that at $8.25 an hour, Illinois has the four highest-minimum wage in the country, Martin Sheen thinks it should be higher.

Governor Quinn has bee working for months to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour, and brought in Sheen to use his star power to push this economically disastrous agenda. Sheen asks the crowd, “who could argue with $10 an hour?”

Well Mr. Sheen, to start, how’s about a Nobel Prize winning economist? While the peddlers of a higher minimum wage argue that they are trying to help the poor, legendary economist and humanitarian Milton Friedman argued that a higher minimum wage in fact hurts the poor. The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum wage laws.

The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum wage laws.

The minimum wage law requires employers to discriminate against persons with low skills. No one describes it that way, but that is in fact what it is. Take a poorly educated teenager with little skill whose services are worth, say, only $2.00 an hour. He or she might be eager to work for that wage in order to acquire greater skills that would permit a better job. The law says that such a person may be hired only if the employer is willing to pay him or her (in 1979) $2.90 an hour. Unless an employer is willing to add 90 cents in charity to the $2.00 that the person’s services are worth, the teenager will not be employed. It has always been a mystery to us why a young person is better off unemployed from a job that would pay $2.90 an hour than employed at a job that does pay $2.00 an hour.


What people like Martin Sheen don’t understand is that by forcing employers to needlessly pay their workers more, they are inadvertently cutting the amount of people the employer can afford to hire. A $10 minimum wage means that an employer can afford to hire half as many people as they could on a $5 minimum wage. A $20 dollar minimum wage means that an employer can only afford to hire half as many employees as they could on a $10 minimum wage, and a quarter as many people as they could on a $5 minimum wage.

Martin Sheen asks, “who could argue with $10 an hour?” The answer is that every employee and employer who have already agreed on less. If someone offers you a job for $7.00 an hour, it is up to you whether you take it or not. You can either decide that the amount offered is worth your time, or it is not. If you take the job, you have made the decision to exchange your time for that amount of money. You may want a higher pay, but you’ve agreed to do the work for that pay. For some a higher minimum wage means more pay, but for countless others, it means no pay at all.

Follow the author on Facebook here or on twitter @PatVKane

Read more here

Self-Proclaimed Marxist Professor Whines About Being Called… A Marxist

Wellesley College
(Wellesley College)

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

– William Shakespeare

While a rose by any other name may smell as sweet, it would seem that when a Massachusetts College Professor is called a Marxist, even though the Professor describes herself as a Marxist, it’s known as “Red Baiting“.

According to an article on Campus, College Professor Julie Ann Matthaei, a self-proclaimed Marxist, was offended when a group pointed out the fact that she was a Marxist:

Wellesley College professor Julie Matthaei describes herself as a “Marxist-feminist-anti-racist-ecological-economist” on the college’s official website, but accused a pro-business group of “red-baiting” for citing this description in an advertisement opposing minimum wage hikes.

It was her description of herself that we put in the ad,” Michael Saltsman, research director for the pro-business group The Employment Policies Institute (EPI), said in an interview with Campus Reform on Tuesday.

EPI’s advertisement appeared in The New York Timeson Feb. 27 and included quotations from academic economists — including Matthaei — who had signed a petition supporting the policy.

“Suddenly you’re thrust on the national stage, and it was a shock,” Matthaei said in an article inThe Boston Globe. “I felt I was being red-baited.”

Saltsman said he does not think the ad is red-baiting, but simply offers insight into the backgrounds of those who signed the petition.

“She acts as if she is sort of shocked by this ad, but it’s your description of yourself,” he said. “So, if you’re offended by your own words, that’s fine.

 To read more go Here.


Private NSA? Soros Funded Group Is Spying On Conservatives


Just when you thought the only thing you had to worry about while talking your phone was that someone at the NSA was listening, a group funded by a wealthy Progressive decides to get into the same business by spying on Conservatives.

According to an article on The American Spectator, a group funded by billionaire, George Soros, admitted that they are spying on Conservatives:

American Bridge PAC spent last week spying on the private conversations of attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

The group also plans to spy on the private lives of GOP delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention wherever the convention is located, but Politicoreports ABPAC has issued the following threat if the GOP selects Las Vegas as its host city. American Bridge has set up this website at “SinCityGOP” and announces (bold print supplied):

While the Republican Party debates where to hold the Republican National Convention in 2016, American Bridge is preparing our team of researchers and trackers to capture the action no matter what city they choose.

In making their selection, Republicans would do well to remember that Las Vegas is already the city with the most cameras per capita of anywhere on the planet. What’s another two or three dozen American Bridge trackers added to the mix?

And if the RNC does choose Las Vegas, this is the site for all the action. What happens in Vegas… will go right here.

American Bridge was founded by Clinton ally David Brock and is funded by longtime Clinton supporter and billionaire George Soros. American Bridge PAC president Brad Woodhouse boasted that the group’s “trackers” at CPAC had been “in the hallways capturing conversations and that kind of thing.” Meaning? Meaning Hillary’s American Bridge is about invading privacy. CPAC’s today, someone else’s tomorrow. Yours.

Read more Here.

H/T Weasel Zippers

Edwin Lyngar/Salon: Old White FoxNews Watchers have “Thrashing Hysteria”

Ed Lyngar's undergrad degree in lesbian poetry makes him basically an expert on anthropological global warming, so says Ed.

Ed Lyngar’s undergrad degree in postmodern 19th century French lesbian poetry makes him basically an expert on anthropological global warming, so says Ed.

Edwin Lyngar is a sad soul, he’s one who claims to have “lost” his father to Fox News because the guy is upset about the news he reads today.

“My father sincerely believes that science is a political plot, Christians are America’s most persecuted minority and Barack Obama is a full-blown communist. He supports the use of force without question, as long as it’s aimed at foreigners. He thinks liberals are all stupid, ignorant fucks who hate America.”

Lyngar, a stupid ignorant fuck who hates America, spends an entire article using his father as a foil to beat up proving how evil Fox News is, and how it’s creating mental diseases in old white people.

Imagine if an article were to say that BET caused neurosis in blacks, or if we suggested that QVC was making old white women too materialistic, or CNN was making retarded people more retarded. But it’s ok to beat up on white people who watch Fox, because it’s chic and hip to use racial stereotypes and prejudices against whites. By most leftists definition it can’t be racist if it’s negative against whites.

Lyngar then also talks about how his father lacks email and doesn’t surf the web, so by posting this article at Salon he pretty well ensures his father will never find it.

And Lyngar qualifies his father as a moron and him as the educated white liberal with these three simple sentences, a real gem: “I’m overeducated in the humanities, so I’m an imperfect ambassador for science. I respect scholarship, peer review and the scientific method. When I tell my dad he should believe the experts in climate science, he gets really mad.”

What a pretentious asshole.

But Lyngar doubles-down on pretentiousness, near his conclusion when he says, “While white, Fox News-addicted baby boomers have lost their sense of hope. They’ve been passed over by shifting attitudes about gay marriage, the role of government and a host of issues. They still think of themselves as the “silent majority,” when in reality they are a wounded and thrashing legacy of white hegemony. My parents’ generation is becoming fragile antiques, relics by choice, reassured by Fox News that they are still the only voice that matters.”

This is called “projection” and it’s not based on “facts” and not very “scientific” because Lyngar is just “talking out of his ass here.”

Even the New York Times admits young people are drifting conservative. Even on specific issues, like abortion, they are becoming progressively more in line with the political right than anything else. Young people have permissive attitudes towards gay marriage, but they also have permissive attitudes towards everything. It’s the current embodiment of the tired quote misattributed to Churchill that you’re liberal at 20 unless you have no heart and conservative at 40 unless you have no brain. People who have never paid taxes before have a hard time grasping why they’re so bad, thus young people have warped views about the “role of government.”

But Lyngar’s father has had a lifetime of experience behind him. His father has spent more time on the earth, and experienced more things. Yet Lyngar junior can only understand his father by dismissing him, by cheering on his demise and death so that time can finally pass him by, as if all of history is on some liberal linear graph going from George Wallace at one end to Lord Savior B. Hussein Obama on the other end.

And it’s tempting to believe that maybe Lyngar junior just wants us all to proverbially “get along” and to get past all the hate that’s in politics right now. We need consensus, says the moderates in our ears at all times. Yet in sum, Lyngar spends the entire article thrashing and promoting hysteria against Fox as some agent of elderly mental disease. Lyngar the hypocrite hates how much his father hates liberals that he wrote a hate-filled article explaining how he hates Fox for making him hate his father.

Lyngar junior is still just a boy, one with a few worthless meaningless humanities degrees (to which I don’t fault him, we’ve all got one or two in our closet we can’t get rid of and aren’t proud of), but that doesn’t make him a political sage who should sneer down his nose at his father. It’s telling that Lyngar can’t understand his father’s values except to say that they exist only through Fox’s New York studios.

If you want to see real hate, unbelievably sustained hate, just look at the left. Look at Salon. Look at FireDogLake. Look at any outlet on the left that can’t talk about the right except to reduce them to simplistic dismissive soundbites: racist, fascist, bigots, xenophobes, anti-semites, homophobes, etc. When the extent of one’s empathy and understanding is to call someone, especially a parent, just one of those dehumanizing words, there’s something wrong with you and not them. Lyngar junior, get help.