Left-wing columnist CJ Werleman couldn't resist using athlete Ray Rice's suspension from the NFL on Monday as a means to attack social conservatives. Werleman took to Twitter and snarked, "If Ray Rice continues to treat women like that, he'll end up running the Hobby Lobby."
Although Phil Robertson had already dodged a bullet Tuesday morning by giving a clever answer to ABC reporter Ryan Owens, who asked Phil Robertson if “he was a homophobe,” Robertson still wasn’t out of hot water. The famous patriarch of A&E’s “Duck Dynasty” and outspoken Christian conservative is a frequent media target. Predictably, media lefties made it clear who they think the real enemy is.
As news broke earlier in the day that a second American journalist had been beheaded by ISIL, Hannity asked Robertson what America’s options were for dealing with the terrorists. Robinson replied, “In this case, you either have to convert them,” Robertson paused. “Which I think would be next to impossible.” He explained, “I’m not giving up on them, but I’m just saying, either convert them or kill them. One or the other. Maybe that time has come and gone. So I think with this ideology ... we have to deal with this group way more harshly than we have up to this point.” He went on to make it clear he would “rather preach the Gospel of Jesus to them, but would be “prepared” to kill if they were looking for a fight.
Watch the rest of his comments below:
Michelle Duggar, of the popular TLC show “19 Kids and Counting” is under heat again from the media for publicly sharing her conservative religious views.
Earlier in the week, residents in Fayetteville, Arkansas received robo-calls from the famous mother, in which she warned families to protest a new anti-discrimination bill that went before the city council Tuesday night and passed. The ordinance prohibits employers or businesses from discriminating against transgenders in issues of housing, employment and public restrooms. In the robocall, Michelle Duggar warned parents that the new law would allow men to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, possibly endangering women and children.
It’s widely known that when Hillary Clinton was in high school, she was a big fan of Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign. But would Hillary, if elected POTUS, take after the 20th century’s uber-conservative, Ronald Reagan, at least in terms of a hawkish foreign policy? Elias Isquith made that case in a Saturday article in Salon.
Isquith scrutinized the ideas Hillary expressed in her foreign-policy-themed interview with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and found them wanting next to the modesty of the current president: “Obama, unlike Clinton, doesn’t talk about the world as if it were the stage for a great struggle between slavery and freedom. He knows that kind of talk was discredited by the results of our foreign policy from 2002 to 2008.”
We don’t know who’d win a presidential race between Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon, but apparently we could be almost certain of three things: Jefferson would campaign ethically; Nixon would play dirty; and the media would have no problem with Nixon’s sleazy tactics.
The above scenario is extrapolated from Paul Rosenberg’s Salon article last Saturday in which Rosenberg argued that liberal Democrats, “fair-minded and rule-abiding,” have long been at a competitive disadvantage against conservative Republican “streetfighters,” and that “the Beltway media takes these double standards for granted, accepts them as normal and even adopts them as their default framework.” From Rosenberg’s piece (emphasis added):
Imagine a movie that 1) sympathetically portrays Occupy Wall Street and 2) features songs by “Weird Al” Yankovic. If you think 1) and 2) seem incongruous, you might get an argument from writer Lynn Stuart Parramore.
In a piece that ran Wednesday on Salon and originally appeared on AlterNet, Parramore claimed that Yankovic’s recent chart-topping album, Mandatory Fun, contains a “deeply moral theme…about how capitalism’s servants — narcissism, greed, vulgarity, and all-around douchiness — have to carry out its orders to beat us into a pulverized pulp of compliance.” She also exulted that in one of her favorite tracks, “Al skewers the corporate capitalism which promised us all the wonders of efficiency, harmony and prosperity, only to deliver us to Dilbert’s cubicle of despair.” From Parramore’s story (emphasis added):
Conservatives seeking a potential president who’s like Ronald Reagan might be interested to know that Andrew O’Hehir of Salon thinks he’s found such a person. True, they might then be surprised to learn that he's talking about Hillary Clinton.
O’Hehir, who’s well to the left of Hillary on economic issues, doesn’t intend the Clinton-Reagan comparison as a compliment to either. He believes that she is and he was propelled by “the force of money and those who wield it,” and that these days, plutocrats control the whole political process: “You can’t separate the fact that only rich people can run for president from the fact that both parties are fueled by rich people’s money, or from the fact that beneath all their partisan bickering Democrats and Republicans have vigorously collaborated for more than 20 years on a set of deregulatory, low-tax and cheap-credit economic policies that have made rich people a whole lot richer.” From O’Hehir’s Saturday piece (emphasis added):
A few months ago, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) announced he would leave the House after the current session to host a radio talk show. But what about a talk host running for Congress? In a Tuesday piece, Salon’s Jim Newell wondered about the possibility that conservative talkers such as Laura Ingraham would take the plunge.
Newell mentioned Ingraham’s vigorous support for Cantor-slayer Dave Brat and noted that Ingraham recently said she’s “keeping an open mind about running for office in the future.” That said, he concluded she won’t run since it would mean a massive reduction in her income and influence. He added that in a campaign, she would face questions about “decades and decades of [her] hateful comments directed at more or less every person and demographic.” From Newell’s piece (emphasis added):
How do you visually represent a missed opportunity? In a Sunday column for Salon, What’s the Matter With Kansas? author Thomas Frank suggests one answer: given the Obama administration’s repeated failure to deliver much-needed leftist change, the future Obama presidential library and museum should be “designed as…a mausoleum of hope.”
Obama’s salient mistake, Frank asserts, was that he “propped up” the obviously discredited “shitty consensus ideas” of the Reagan era. He expects that the museum will portray Obama “as a kind of second FDR: the man who saved the system from itself. That perhaps the system didn’t deserve saving will be left to some less-well-funded museum.”
Much like Don Quixote mistook windmills for giants and wished to do battle with them, Republicans wrongly perceive Democrats as extreme leftists and consequently work themselves into an ideological lather.
That was, essentially, one of the main points that Salon’s Paul Rosenberg made in his Saturday piece on "Tea Party phonies" pegged to the Pew Research Center’s recent study on American political polarization. Rosenberg contended, reasonably enough, that congressional Republicans as a group are far more conservative than their counterparts of fifty years ago, but also claimed strangely that congressional Democrats are, overall, no more liberal than their mid-’60s predecessors.
Liberals have been spewing absolute nonsense since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood, and several other businesses that filed a suit against the HHS contraception mandate. Salon’s Paul Rosenberg is no different, except the fevered, high-pitched whine of his hysteria makes one suspect that, whatever he pays his drycleaner, it ain’t enough.
In a July 8 piece at Salon, Rosenberg actually tried to make the case that “right-wing propaganda about “‘religious liberty’” is a smokescreen to hide the fact that conservatives are pushing for “the advancement of theocracy,” or as Rosenberg put it “ religious dictatorship.” Yes, because SCOTUS didn’t find an absolute right to free birth control in the Constitution, we’re headed for inquisition, forced conversions and heretic burnings, and all the other theocratic nightmares of the dark days of … 2008.
At the top of the list of Independence Day killjoys is Salon.com. No one is shocked. On Friday, they posted an article titled “I hate the Fourth of July: The Fourth once reminded us to ensure that all men are created equal. Here's what it's become now.” No wonder they're doing Twitter satire at @salondotcom. Just imagine a conservative site laying an "I hate Martin Luther King Day" egg on that stop of the calendar.
As usual, the Left thinks the Founders were all about establishing the redistribution of wealth, not liberty for all. Jonathan Zimmerman began typically with how America failed to live up to its promise for so many years....and still falls far short. Then it really grew depressing about fireworks injuries: