After seeing all the molehill climbing going on in the liberal blogs and liberal press over the past few months, it's nice to finally see common sense prevail regarding the fate of two men charged with "lynching" Obama.
Approximately 4 months ago, Joe Fischer and Hunter Bush got what appeared to be a rather crass idea. They decided to hang, the then presidential candidate, Barack Obama in effigy. I say it appeared to be a crass idea because it turns out they got their inspiration from a neolibtard out in Cali who did the same thing, only the effigy in question turned out to be vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.
Yes, I know you didn't hear anything about the Palin hanging. That's because mainstream media is so "fair and balanced." But Fischer and Bush's mock hanging of Obama was the shot heard 'round the world as far as the libs go. Secular fundies and afro-centrists came out of the woodwork to condemn the pair, because the statement Fischer and Bush were making was so "obviously" motivated by race…or was it?
As it turns out, the pair's behavior had nothing to do with race and everything to do with just how biased the Left is when it comes to those they consider their enemies. The double standard is unmistakable. You can say or do anything you want concerning conservatives. But you'd better move to the back of the bus when being critical of the Left or their idols. Actually, I'm being generous when I use the bus metaphor. The reality is neoliberals have something a little more permanent in mind. They'll gladly open the back door and throw your ass out in the street if you dare question, critique, or bash their sacred dogmas. Nothing like hitting the pavement after being thrown from a moving vehicle, right? In this case, Fischer and Bush found out the hard way. But then, they weren't just being critical of an idea, they were bashing the Left's Messiah.
That kind of hypocrisy goes unnoticed and unchecked in the mainstream. As an example, let's take a cursory examination of the Mapplethorpe exhibit. Among other things, this supposed art exhibit sported a photograph of one man urinating into the mouth of another. Lovers of decency were understandably outraged and moved to block the public exhibit. In response, liberals brought out the big guns. They couldn’t understand why anyone would want to censor such a "great" example of "fine art." However, when a couple of people decide to hang a mannequin from a tree, well, that's just going too far..unless, of course, the mannequin in question is Sarah Palin or George W. Bush, etc. Get the picture?
So it does my heart good to see that when Fischer and Bush were brought up on multiple charges before a grand jury of their peers today, they weren't indicted. Common sense prevailed.
Do these guys' actions deserve our disdain? Yes, probably. Should we have condemned their action as wrong? Absolutely. But their action to hang a dummy from a tree, while in poor taste, certainly didn't warrant bringing these guys up on charges. Nor any of the other myriad ways the functionally insane liberals can devise to waste our tax dollars while simultaneously attempting to squash any objections to liberal orthodoxy.
Michael Reagan reports that the liberal stimulus package (“bailout” #2) includes $50 billion for the National Endowment for the arts. (seeing that you mention Mapplethorpe).
Yes, liberal politicians sat down with each other and said, “You know, the only thing that can cure this economy right now is bad art.”
Reagan’s article is listed here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2009/01/28/unclogging_the_liberal_$_pipeline
Also included in the stimulus was essentially 5.2 billion that would end up mainly going to ACORN.
Absolutely there is a double standard when it comes to protection of free speech on the left versus free speech on the right. It was right that the people’s speech was protected in this case, and they weren’t thrown in jail. If there are consequences for out of line speech it should only be social and not legal. In other words, a man shouldn’t be thrown in jail, but his neighbors should say, “Now just what were you thinking?” -Cal Samuel August
Thanks Cal. The pork embedded in this bill is staggering. Kind of interesting. Last night, while switching between Hannity and Mathews, I noticed that Hannity enumerated several pork projects attached to this bill. Mathews, who goes Old Faithful pretty much anytime someone even mentions President Obama, was saying that Obama objected to the bill on the grounds that it contained specific pork spending, like prophylactics and so forth. Mathews claims Obama demanded those things be removed. I don’t know if it’s true or not. But it seems to me that ANY pork is too much, if you know what I mean. But earlier this week, it was reported that Obama heavily lobbied key legislators in order to get this thing passed. The smart ones know that “lobbied” just means somebody got paid off for their vote, not unlike when Bush was doing the same thing to get Amnesty for illegals, $700 billion bailouts, etc. Anyway, I guess Obama only objected to the pork he didn’t pay for directly. You won’t see that on the evening news.
Oh I need to add that there are deliberate puns in my last comment. Didn’t know if you’d notice…LOL
ENJOY!