Doesn’t look like the second shoe is going to drop on the GLAAD-produced controversy. So far, there has been no push back coming from adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, and the swindlers.
So why would A&E react the way they did when their own public statement responding to GLAAD was that Phil Robertson’s statement was his own and had nothing to do with their network or their TV show? (It’s a rhetorical question.)
In just a matter of a few days, we’ve seen GLAAD, the activist gay rights folks, manage to get Phil Robertson “The Duck Commander” and family head of the most popular TV reality show, publicly (figuratively) crucified for a lie they started and the sympathetic media repeated. His thoughts and belief of what is a sin was a little more reality than they could collectively swallow.
Then Cracker Barrel, also owned by A&E, announced that it was pulling all the Duck Dynasty merchandise that had the likeness of Phil on it, off of their shelves. Two days later, Cracker Barrel did a 180.
“Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done,” the company announced. “Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.”
Seems you, with the help of the same social media that was used to start the controversy, ended it. At least as far as Cracker Barrel goes. Whether A&E will do the same to, or for, Phil remains to be seen.
But that’s not the story. The lie that the wacko Left at Media Matters is perpetuating from GLAAD is that Phil equated homosexuals to bestiality. Which he did not.
The folks at Soros-financed Media Matters, (Jeremy Holder and Jess Levin) live in their alternate reality which is so perverted that they came up with a conspiracy to support it. On their radio show, the kids at Media Matters said that the pushback was part of a conspiracy to silence the activists like GLAAD and anyone else that conservatives, republicans, tea partiers don’t like. Raise your hand if you’ve heard of this super secret plan.
They’re pretty creative. They have no boundaries when it comes to fabricating whatever “facts” they need to make a point. But hey, you gotta do what you gotta do to make the lie seem more credible. So this is what they’re pushing. The pushback from millions of Americans had absolutely nothing to do with twisting Phils words and for being fired for truthfully answering what a sin is to him. Beliefs he holds in common with the vast majority of Americans. No. Their story is that Phil was spewing hate by vile comments towards the gay community, and they’re sticking to it.
Having felt the heat long enough, Chicagoans are finally seeing the light. Rev. Al Sharpton went to Chicago to discuss gun violence. But the people had something to say that the he never anticipated and, not surprisingly, the media is not covering.
Here are a few choice quotes from the video:
http://youtu.be/Jzo9lCBYzA4
All I can add to this is, welcome brothers and sisters. Voting differently is the way out of the malaise, the crime, and government dependency.
Jumping at the chance to be offended, the gay activists at GLAAD mobilized to barrage A&E with complaints. They said this kind of discrimination will not be tolerated. What? The only person being discriminated against is Phil Robertson on Duck Dynasty who, thanks to them, has lost his job. Not only that, but they said (they lied) that Phil compared homosexuality to bestiality. He did not. But in typical Liberal fashion, they make up what they have to in order to attack someone who doesn’t think like they do. Phil was not speaking for or representing GLADD’s agenda. He represented himself only, and honestly answered questions he was asked about his personal beliefs. Seems like it is GLADD that has no tolerance for straight people who happen to be religious.
If GLAAD really speaks for all gays, how does it figure that two percent of the population have no tolerance for the other 98 percent?
Phil Robertson, patriarch of the family on the TV show, merely responded to a question (from a lefty magazine writer) about what is sinful to him. Knowing he and his whole family don’t hide their religion on the TV show or in person, Drew Magary no doubt knew he would hear something that would be sensational to him and his ilk. And the 67 yr. old Phil Robertson told the truth about his personal belief and experience.
Can’t imagine why the object of homosexual behavior is so vile, as the GLAADites whine. It is what it is. Men don’t have vaginas. They use their (clinical name) anus for sexual penetration. So if that sounds vile to you, maybe you’re not as gay as you think? Or a teeny bit ashamed? I don’t know. Someone please enlighten me on what is offensive or vile about that statement. Aside from it being just one man’s opinion of what sin is. Your mileage may vary. In his story, Magary doesn’t print the question that provoked this response, but it seems clear that it had something to do with homosexual behavior. (A note to Magary on what prompted his response has not been responded to.)
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” Phil says. “Sin becomes fine.”
Question:What, in your mind, is sinful?
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
This is where the hetero bashers (GLAAD) put words in to Phil’s answer that don’t exist. Answering to “what is sinful” to him, Phil lists a lot, starting with homosexual behavior, and including other sinful acts, bestiality, heterosexual sins, and non-sexual sins.
Now, if Drew Magary wanted a story about the man, he could have done that by simply saying that Phil is a religious man and holds the common beliefs of his faith, that homosexual behavior is a sin. Instead, he prints what seems to be Phil just trying to explain to a lay person (Magary) why he feels the way he does. But obviously, that’s not the message, or mission, Magary wanted or was on.
That A&E succumbed to all the moral and religious intolerance of groups like GLAAD and fired Phil, while at the same time they admit in their own statement that his words had nothing to do with A&E, shows their moral compass, or lack thereof.
Where President Clinton built wealth-spreading into the tax code, President Obama put it into overdrive by adding “social justice” to it with the addition of the non-affordable Affordable Care Act. A nationalized health care scheme that requires the young and healthy to pay for the old and infirm. The consequences are surprising, and getting worse.
In a random act of journalism, CNBC reporter Jane Wells gives the striking details of a CBO report released last week entitled The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010. (Table 3, Page 13) In personal income taxes it boils down to this, the rich don’t pay most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes. The upper two quintiles, or 40% of taxpayers, pay 106% of all personal income taxes. For the lower 40%, their “taxes” are a revenue stream.
Politicians are pretty slick when it comes to manipulating the tax code. Which is why we must get rid of it and replace it with something that can’t be used as a tool for class warfare and social engineering. The FairTax is the best alternative, for everybody. But I digress.
Wielding the tax hammer for social engineering increases public debt. Lesson not learned here is that money doesn’t grow on trees and, stop increasing the spending. But it’s OK if you can use the tax code to buy votes. What? This is where the class envy/class warfare tactic, as connected to the tax code, was taken to a higher level.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 made additional changes to the tax code providing a modest tax cut. The centerpiece of the 1997 Act was a significant new tax benefit to certain families with children through the Per Child Tax credit. The truly significant feature of this tax relief, however, was that the credit was refundable for many lower-income families. That is, in many cases the family paid a “negative” income tax, or received a credit in excess of their pre-credit tax liability. Though the tax system had provided for individual tax credits before, such as the Earned Income Tax credit, the Per Child Tax credit began a new trend in federal tax policy. Previously tax relief was generally given in the form of lower tax rates or increased deductions or exemptions. The 1997 Act really launched the modern proliferation of individual tax credits and especially refundable credits that are in essence spending programs operating through the tax system.
“There’s no difference at all in terms of the effects on the federal deficit,” says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. “It’s perfectly equivalent. It’s just easier to say, ‘I cut your taxes’ as opposed to ‘I created a new federal program to send money to people.’”
Links: The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes | Happy Tax-The-Rich Day
Time was that the local daily newspaper, Pensacola News Journal, published letters to the editor on a daily basis. Why is that?
One reason would be that the people have been beaten down, lost all hope, if not their job, under this lawless and oppressive administration, have thrown in the towel and have given up speaking up.
Another would be that the paper feels a need to protect the Obama administration by not publishing letters perhaps overwhelmingly negative, if not informative.
There is one more possible reason. It could be an economic one. Maybe, with shrinking subscriber revenue, they can’t afford the paper to print the letters on? After several reporters and executives have already accepted early retirement or been laid off, maybe what we’re seeing is the evolution of the devolution of print media, and the people’s voice is the next casualty?
Croats voted overwhelmingly in favor of defining marriage in the constitution as a “union of man and woman” on Sunday. Croatia now shares its constitutional definition of marriage with Belarus, Poland, Moldova, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Serbia.
Almost 66 percent of those who voted in the referendum in the new European Union member endorsed the initiative, launched by the Catholic group “In the Name of the Family”, according to preliminary results on Sunday night. Turnout was 37 percent. The vote was not surprising given that 90 percent of Croatia is Roman Catholic.
Current law in Croatia states that marriage is between a man and woman. The point of the constitutional referendum was to insure that no laws would or could change that definition, short of a constitutional amendment which would need a two-thirds vote, 66 percent. Despite the overwhelming majority of the effort to put it in the constitution, the Croatian government was opposed to it but will comply with the referendum. The government will be making laws to grant equal rights to same-sex couples instead of changing or expanding the definition of the word. It is also considering changes to the constitutional referendum process to restrict the ability for the public to start changes to it.
It is instructive to see the liberal bias in the news reporting of the referendum. More than just defining the meaning of the word in the constitution, there are headlines like “Same-sex marriage ban divides Croatia” and “Croatians Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage.” Choosing automatic victim status, in true liberal fashion, Croatians didn’t vote for the normal definition of marriage, they voted against gays. There was no same-sex marriage ban. In Croatia, same-sex marriage isn’t now and never has been legal. And if anything, the referendum united Croatia on what marriage is. It didn’t divide it.
You got to hand it to Democrats for one thing. When they have a story, or a focus group tested word or phrase, they (and the media) stick to it.
No civilized person can look at this “game” going on around the country and not be repulsed at the inhumanity perpetrated on non-suspecting innocent victims. It’s called the “knockout game.” The dirty little secret is it seems to be perpetrated by Blacks on Whites. One victim exception I found in videos is an attack on a 70-year-old homeless Black man.
There’s no room for PC on this subject. The crimes perpetrated by these niggers1, and that’s exactly what they are, deserve the full attention of the media and people like Jesse Sharpton, and no less, President Obama himself. Quick to jump into things like Trayvon Martin and the Cambridge MA police, President Obama has been silent on this criminal behavior being carried out by young Blacks (whose unemployment rate is 50%). This game has gone on for five years according to news reports (since around the time of his inauguration) and no one in the country could have more sway on this than the self-proclaimed uniter and post-racial President himself. So where is he?
The language and scenes in this video are not for the mentally weak, or children. It is replete with F-bombs and the N-word the word nigger.
http://youtu.be/Eo_FYVwIeaY
I like his “solution” from the standpoint of a potential victim. Now I’m not advocating shooting a group of Black people because they’re a group and they’re Black, like TJS suggests in a dramatic way. I think that’s just for shock value. He eventually comes down to if you’re a victim, shoot the perp. You gotta believe that anyone who would be attacked like that is justified in making that perp DRT. Dead Right There! The victim has no time to ponder whether that punch will be fatal, or whether the others will take a shot at you too. If you have the power to stop it, for good, then do. Don’t ‘play’ their game and they’ll start thinking of a more civilized way to get their kicks, while they’re still alive.
1Before you get wrapped around the axle on the term nigger, you must know that it means different things to different people. What it means to me, and Tommy Sotomayor, is, it describes a behavior of a person. It’s more a term, than a word. Which is also to say that niggers come in all colors. The term is not exclusive to Black people. There are White niggers too. That they exist is undeniable. It’s not limited to physical violence either. It also includes stealing, blatant or covert, and your basic vandalism ‘for kicks.’ A person that does that to other people is, imho, a nigger. So get over it.
The Daily Beast is just dumfounded at the suggestion that there is a new kind of slavery going on. It’s OK that The Beast doesn’t get the metaphor. Maybe it’s a little 
too deep for them to understand.
It boils down to this. like slaves were owned, our future generations will be owned by the debt we are putting them in today. China, the debt, becomes the new Massa for generations to come.
The political left has gotten drunk with their “racist” ranting. That’s OK as long as everyone realizes that it just means they have no way to discuss the real problem, the debt, so they do what they do, re-direct the issue to anything else.
