Please send your e-protest message to the Chance Theater in Anaheim, California, on Jerry Springer: The Opera, which desecrates Christianity.
Send e-protest: E0319 protest | Protest.
Please send your e-protest message to the Chance Theater in Anaheim, California, on Jerry Springer: The Opera, which desecrates Christianity.
Send e-protest: E0319 protest | Protest.
Of all the details surrounding the liberal mob attack on Glenn Beck and his family in New York’s Bryant Park last Monday night, one element stands out. “No, it won’t be like that, Dad,” his daughter said when Beck questioned the wisdom of attending a free, outdoor movie showing in a New York park.
People who have never been set upon by a mob of liberals have absolutely no idea what it’s like to be a publicly recognizable conservative. Even your friends will constantly be telling you: “Oh, it will be fine. Don’t worry. Nothing will happen. This place isn’t like that.”
Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest pussies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn’t play a sport and have never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising them during toilet training.
I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck’s tormentors, and I wasn’t there.
Beck and his family would have been fine at an outdoor rap concert. They would have been fine at a sporting event. They would have been fine at any paid event, mostly because people who work for the government and live in rent-controlled apartments would be too cheap to attend.
Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.
A liberal’s idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a conservative public figure who can’t afford to strike back. Getting in a stranger’s face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a wall.
They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people’s manners. I know I’ll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.
These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with. They assault a conservative only when it’s a sucker-punch, they outnumber him, or he can’t fight back for reasons of law or decorum.
Liberals don’t get that when you’re outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you’re not brave.
But they’re not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn’t I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c**t. Wasn’t I awesome?
This is a liberal’s idea of raw physical courage.
When someone does fight back, liberals transform from aggressor to victim in an instant, collapsing on the ground and screaming bloody murder. I’ve seen it happen in a nearly empty auditorium when there was quite obviously no other human within 5 feet of the gutless invertebrate.
People incapable of conforming to the demands of civilized society are frightening precisely because you never know what else such individuals are capable of. Sometimes — a lot more often than you’ve heard about — liberals do engage in physical violence against conservatives … and then bravely run away.
That’s why not one person stepped up to aid Beck and his family as they were being catcalled and having wine dumped on them at a nice outdoor gathering.
No one ever steps in. Never, not once, not ever. (Except at the University of Arizona, where college Republicans chased my assailant and broke his collarbone, God bless them.)
Most people are shocked into paralysis at the sight of sociopathic liberal behavior. The only ones who aren’t are the conservative’s bodyguards — and they can’t do anything without risking a lawsuit or an arrest.
My hero Tim Profitt is now facing charges for stopping a physical assault on Senate candidate Rand Paul by a crazed woman disguised in a wig.
But the disturbed liberal whose assault Profitt stopped faces no charges — she instigated the entire confrontation and then instantly claimed victim status. In a better America, the cop would say, “Well, you provoked him.”
Kentucky prosecutors must be very proud of how they so dutifully hew to the letter of the law (except in the case of Paul’s assailant).
Maybe they wouldn’t be such good little rules-followers if they ever, just once, had to face the liberal mob themselves. But if Beck’s own daughter can’t imagine the liberal mob, I suppose prosecutors can’t be expected to, either.
Michael Moore and James Carville can stroll anywhere in America without risking the sort of behavior the Beck family experienced. But all recognizable conservatives are eternally trapped in David Dinkins’ New York: Simply by virtue of leaving their homes, they assume a 20 percent chance of being assaulted.
Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America — and not just because Obama decided to address it. It’s because no one hits back. The message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON’T FIGHT!
There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.
Maybe it’s time for Beck to pony up some of those millions of dollars he’s earned and hire people to rough up the liberal mob, or, at a minimum, to provide a legal defense to those like Profitt who do.
These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it would do wonders.
They need to have their behavior corrected. It’s a shame this job wasn’t done by their parents. It won’t be done by the police.
As long as liberals can’t be normal and prosecutors can’t be reasonable, how about a one-punch rule against anyone bothering a stranger in public? Then we’ll see how brave these lactose-intolerant mama’s boys are.
Believe me, liberal mobbings will stop very quickly after the first toilet-training champion takes his inaugural punch.
What’s the fair way to run a large organization? That’s a question that is squarely, and interestingly, raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a Supreme Court case decided last week.
The lawyers for the plaintiffs, women who work or worked for Wal-Mart, were seeking to bring a class action charging pervasive discrimination against women. The 5-4 Supreme Court majority ruled that the group was too diverse to be given class-action status.
Ginsburg partially disagreed, saying that all female employees and former employees of Wal-Mart might have enough in common to form a coherent class with common interests and entitled to common remedies. (We’ll leave aside the fact that much of the money in these cases ends up with the lawyers.)
“A system of delegated discretion,” she wrote, can be the subject of a class-action lawsuit “when it produces discriminatory outcomes.”
There was no disagreement that Wal-Mart’s management practices are “a system of delegated discretion.” Wal-Mart store managers, as Justice Antonin Scalia explained in his majority opinion, have considerable discretion in deciding whom to hire and whom to promote.
The company, which employs some 1.4 million people in this country, is proud that it tends to promote from within, and it evidently holds its managers responsible for results that it famously monitors extremely closely.
It is hardly necessary to add that this formula was been successful. Wal-Mart is enormously profitable. And I don’t think I’m the only one who has found Wal-Mart greeters and sales people to be friendly and helpful every time I’ve shopped there.
But this is not a fair way to run a business, Ginsburg said, because women hold 70 percent of the company’s hourly jobs but only 33 percent of its management positions. Women are paid less on average than men in every region, and the salary gap between men and women widens over the years.
All of which provides, Ginsburg concluded, an “inference of discrimination.” The fact that many women these days freely choose less demanding work in return for more family and free time surely couldn’t have anything to do with it.
The conclusion I draw is that Ginsburg thinks the only fair way to run a large organization is the way government runs civil service.
All jobs should be numerically classified to eliminate “arbitrary and subjective criteria.” Promotions should be determined by written tests or seniority, not by managers choosing “on the basis of their own subjective interpretations.”
Managers should understand that they will face harsh scrutiny if they don’t hire and promote equal numbers of men and women and pay them all the same. Better just to figure out how to make your gender quotas and avoid any trouble.
Of course, anyone with experience in the real world can tell you that an organization run this way wouldn’t be as efficient as Wal-Mart. It wouldn’t do as good a job of satisfying consumers’ wants. Its employees would probably not be as friendly and helpful.
If you doubt that, think back over the years about your experiences in your local department of motor vehicles. Only the most strenuous efforts by local officials, like former Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty, gets a DMV operating with anything close to Wal-Mart efficiency.
The folks that concocted this lawsuit against Wal-Mart want, in effect, to model the private sector of the economy on the civil service. That’s why they took on the largest private-sector company of them all.
Their motives are similar to those of feminists who, in the 1970s, pushed for “comparable worth” legislation, under which bureaucrats would decide what each job was really worth and what each worker should be paid.
We’re better off if private firms allow managers to use “subjective criteria.” Which is to say, the human judgment we all use in everyday life to judge the performance of others. Sometimes those judgments turn out to be wrong, but on balance they’re more reliable than rigid civil-service criteria.
All of which is recognized by liberals who care about government performance, like education reformers who want to give principals more discretion to weed out bad teachers.
Or, as Elaine Kamarck, head of Al Gore’s Reinventing Government initiative, told me in the 1990s, “No rational person would choose civil service as the way to manage a large organization.” Justice Ginsburg notwithstanding.
It’s not unusual for politicians on Capitol Hill to recognize citizens during hearings on legislation that would have a positive or negative impact on their lives.
But that tactic took a different turn this week when hundreds of illegal immigrants filled the largest hearing room in the Senate to openly participate in the proceedings.
And they did so without threat of arrest from the nation’s chief immigration law enforcement official who was sitting in the front row: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Many of the illegal immigrants were recognized by name by Sen. Dick Durbin (D. –Ill.) who led the panel, and commended by Obama administration officials who want to give them legal status under sweeping legislation called the DREAM Act.
The DREAM Act would give permanent legal status to illegal immigrants, up to age 35, who arrived in the United States before age 16, provided they complete two years of college or serve two years in the military.
“The young people who would be eligible for the DREAM Act call themselves dreamers,” Durbin said. “Over the years, I have met hundreds of these dreamers, and hundreds of them are here today,” Durbin continued.
Durbin introduced about a half dozen of the illegal immigrants by name and asked them to stand, as he told their story of how they were brought into the country illegally by their parents. Although they had attended U.S. schools, Durbin said they
could either not get jobs or faced problems pursing higher education because of their illegal status.
“Let me ask everyone here today who is a DREAM Act student to stand and be recognized,” Durbin said.
Nearly everyone in the audience stood.
“Thank you so much for being here,” Durbin said.
Just 24 hours before the hearing was scheduled to convene in the rather small hearing room of the Judiciary Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building which seats about 100 people, Republican staffers were notified that Democrats had moved the proceeding to room 216 of the Hart Building.
Better known as the “media room,” that hearing hall can seat 300 to 400 and is typically reserved for large gatherings, like confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justices.
Napolitano told this subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee that although the large group gathered was part of the population that is subject to deportation, there would be no enforcement of the law that morning.
The race shakes up this week. It’s the first major shake up of the Presidential horserace in weeks. Michele Bachmann surges into second place — running neck and neck with Mitt Romney. Falling further behind are everyone else.
Tim Pawlenty has stumbled. Gary Johnson is off the track. Newt Gingrich looks to be heading off the track. And then there’s Herman Cain. Cain keeps surprising, but for how much longer?
It looks like Rick Perry is getting into the starting gate and we’ve got to start taking him seriously. Sarah Palin? Well, she’s still not running, but this trip to Iowa raises questions — not just of whether she is running, but who is she helping.
While all eyes are on the starting gate to see who else might get in, Mitt Romney just signaled he’s nervous.
We’ll get into all of it this week in the Horserace. As always, the names are written alphabetically and the take is mine and mine alone as an objective, but conservative, observer of the Presidential horse race.
Michele Bachmann’s polling right now is dazzling and I am now prepared to designate her officially as the anti-Romney candidate. She’s been fighting for legitimacy for months. Her CNN New Hampshire debate performance helped her solidify that legitimacy. Her polling now makes her a top contender. It is a meteoric rise.
The problem for Bachmann is that a meteoric rise typically precedes a meteoric fall in politics. When candidates catch a spark as quickly as Michele Bachmann has, the other campaigns get nervous and a pile on typically ensues. But those campaigns taking off so quickly typically have not made all the staffing decisions they need and can be caught off guard by the pile on, find themselves unable to rapidly respond to the pile on, and flame out.
We’re already seeing the attacks come in both through typical media vetting, liberal bias in the media, and no doubt a few selective leaks from her opponents both in Congress and other campaigns.
Right now though, Bachmann is giving Romney a run for his money in the polls. That doesn’t have Romney worried yet because I’m willing to bet he doesn’t see Bachmann as a long term rival, but as someone who can prevent a greater rival from catching up. HIstory is against Michele Bachmann being the nominee, but she’s having a lot of fun defying history right now.
The more Michele Bachmann seems to be gaining steam, the more Herman Cain seems to be petering out. He has lost two staffers in the past few days. I am hearing rumblings that his campaign finances are not great. Contrary to some misconceptions, Cain cannot self fund. I love Herman Cain. Al Gore may have invented the internet, but Cain invented pizza, so God bless him. But this isn’t looking good.
Running an insurgent campaign only gets you so far. Insurgent campaigns are heavily grassroots based. But with Michele Bachmann now owning the grassroots, it is hard for Cain to stand out. Bachmann’s rise is his fall.
There is a silver lining for Herman Cain. He continues to have growing name id, high favorable intensity, and is holding his own in most polling. The attacks are going to come fast and furious on Michele Bachmann. Cain could potentially position himself to pick up the pieces. Right now, that is the only way I see him gaining traction.
I no longer see the rationale to Newt Gingrich’s campaign. I have talked to a half dozen people over the past few weeks and all recount the same story. Newt told them he was running and largely saw the field as his to own and master. When you come into a race viewing yourself not as the dark horse, but as the white knight, your campaign strategy immediately goes flat when the voters don’t embrace you as the savior and hero.
The financial loss to the Gingrich media campaign has got to be staggering. The loss to his reputation leaves a lot of us breathless. Were I Gingrich, I wouldn’t limp through continuing to bleed. I’d be up front that the campaign wasn’t going as well as expected, the party seems still unsure of its place in the world, and Newt should declare that he is going to step out and provide the intellectual ammunition for the others — then position himself as the all anti-Obama all the time intellect that he is and rebuild his reputation as the proverbial Moses of the party who doesn’t get into the promised land, but without whom the promised land would have been unattainable.
Up front I admit I am biased against Jon Huntsman for a number of reasons. Though I have to admit his tax record is better than Romney’s. The Huntsman campaign is intent on running as the happy moderate and portraying everyone else and their voters as angry.
The problem with that is Huntsman will then need to do something to get into the good graces of those voters come the general election. Certainly many will come out of loathing of Obama. But when Huntsman is portraying himself and the media is portraying Huntsman as the Republican version of Obama, that’s not exactly helping.
If Utah moves up its primary, Huntsman and Romney will fight it out and the winner there will have some momentum. Right now, Huntsman seems focused on New Hampshire, but even more so states after New Hampshire. If Rick Perry gets in, that axes South Carolina from his strategy. He’ll have what amounts to a Giuliani strategy, which I don’t see getting him far.
And a dog fight in Michigan, Nevada, and New Hampshire with Romney helps Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Perry if he gets in.
Gary Johnson will be removed next week from the list. His campaign is dead in the water.
I do not, at this point, see signs that Sarah Palin is getting into the race for President. Considering, however, that she was in New Hampshire when MItt Romney announced and Iowa when Michele Bachmann announced, I definitely think Palin is trying to keep the window open to get in if her polling changes.
Right now, if I had to guess, I think she is not running for anything except continued relevance. Palin can legitimately shape up to be the king maker. I continue to dwell on her comments during the bus tour that she wants Rick Perry to run.
Ron Paul will not be the nominee, but his ability to excite a base of youthful voters is something that continues to impress a lot of people who should know better.
Pawlenty is feeling the political version of the great stagnation the country is feeling economically. He is going nowhere. The slow and steady pace has been what was keeping Pawlenty alive. To his credit, he has given more substantive economic and foreign policy speeches than any of the other candidates including, surprisingly, Mitt Romney.
But Pawlenty is not gaining traction. He’s seen as boring to some or too nice to others. Neither of those are actually terrible things in a general election, but I don’t think they are translating in a Republican Primary.
I still Pawlenty has the inside edge, but now I must say that this is only if he deals with Bachmann carefully. He’s going to need her support in Iowa. Like Cain, Pawlenty can back on Bachmann going back down in the polls and be there to pick up the pieces. He may also have to get traction by going more aggressively for Romney. If, however, Rick Perry gets in, it is going to make it extremely difficult for Pawlenty.
The Perry buzz continues to grow. In addition to his trip to South Carolina for the RedState Gathering, I hear Perry’s associates are reaching out to people in Iowa. Every indication is that Perry is serious about getting in, but I suspect he’s first seeing if he can secure funding. If Perry gets in, I think we won’t see Sarah Palin get in and I think we’ll see a few other candidates depart sooner than expected.
Romney’s campaign may be playing it safe, but there are signs of concern. A Wall Street Journal article from yesterday has quotes from a Utah elections official who claimed Romney was trying to pressure Utah to move up its primary date even though it would cost Utah citizens $2.5 million to do so.
That Romney is trying to move up the Utah primary to get himself a good win in a favorable state early suggests concern. Likewise, it is Jon Huntsman’s home state too, but surprisingly a lot of polls have Romney beating Huntsman. Pushing up the primary could give Romney a chance to finish off Huntsman early instead of battling Huntsman’s millions in a protracted race.
Likewise, with Bachmann’s surge, we may see a situation where Bachmann wins Iowa, putting her in a position to also win South Carolina. Starting with the GOP Primary in 1980, no Republican has won the nomination without winning South Carolina.
I see no rationale for Rick Santorum to remain in the race and I expect him to drop out sooner rather than later. His fundraising is not going to be nearly as impressive as Bachmann’s and he increasingly is without buzz on the campaign trail or an ability to have an impact.