Thursday, April 03, 2014
America's most prolific mass murderer is black
Which is presumably why there is an attempted media blackout on his story. The difficulties of making a film about him are noted below
As a follower of the Media Research Center, you are likely familiar with the story of Kermit Gosnell, the convicted murderer who ran a slaughterhouse masquerading as an abortion clinic in Philadelphia.
It was a story the media tried very hard to cover up last year in an effort to keep Americans in the dark about the gruesome underbelly of the abortion industry. But with your help, the MRC shamed ABC, CBS, NBC and others to offer brief coverage of Gosnell’s murder trial.
Unfortunately, most ordinary Americans never heard this story. As horrific as it is, it’s a story that should be told.
Two brave filmmakers, Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, want the world to know the Kermit Gosnell story, so they arranged to raise money on the Kickstarter website to make a made-for-TV movie about the shocking Gosnell murder case.
At the last minute, Kickstarter decided to place restrictions on what the filmmakers could say about the story on their website – restrictions they never placed on other projects. It was a clear attempt to block the project.
Well, it didn’t work. McAleer and McElhinney launched their project on another site, indiegogo.com, and you can see the details at http:/www.GosnellMovie.com.
Hollywood normally loves serial killers. There have been four movies about Ted Bundy, five about the Zodiac killer, and three about John Wayne Gacy. The Lifetime Network has already made a film about Jodie Arias, who killed one person. Kermit Gosnell killed more than all of them put together.
Since no Hollywood studio will make this movie, McAleer and McElhinney are turning to ordinary citizens to raise the money to tell the story of America’s Biggest Serial Killer.
America needs to know what happened, so this kind of butchery never happens again.
Email from the MRC
Dear Mr. Colbert: Me so stupid. You so funny!
Question: Who are the most prominent public purveyors of Asian stereotypes and ethnic language-mocking in America?
The right answer is liberal Hollywood and Democrats.
The wrong and slanderous answer is conservatives, which is what liberal performance artist/illegal-alien-amnesty lobbyist Stephen Colbert wants Americans to believe. Last week on his Comedy Central show, Colbert resurrected his "satirical" 2005 "Ching-Chong Ding-Dong" skit, in which he speaks in pidgin English with a grossly exaggerated accent. He used it in a boneheaded attempt to ridicule Republican football team owner Dan Snyder and others who defend the Washington Redskins' name.
"Oh, I ruv tea. It's so good for you. You so pretty, American girl," Colbert, in his conservative talk-show host persona, jibber-jabbers in the 2005 segment. "You come here. You kiss my tea make her sweet. I need no sugar when you around. Come on my rickshaw, I give you a ride to Bangkok." Forward to 2014: To mock Snyder's recent creation of a foundation to benefit Native Americans, Colbert replayed the skit and jeered in character that he was "willing to show the Asian community that I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever."
Last week, a group of diehard liberals, led by young Korean-American writer Suey Park, gave Colbert a hard time about his cringe-worthy act, which was accompanied by an awkward laugh track and left the distinct impression that the real Colbert enjoys crude ethnic-language mockery just a little too much.
Park and her liberal Twitter followers tenaciously questioned Colbert's use of "satire" that ends up stoking the racism it purports to mock and abhor. They obviously picked the incendiary #CancelColbert hashtag to force attention to their complaints. My view is and always has been that the answer to speech you disagree with is more and better speech. For me, #CancelColbert wasn't about censoring his show. It was about exposing his hypocrisy and don't-you-understand-satire double standards.
Park complained that Colbert and his defenders are race-baiting liberals who hide behind their self-professed progressivism. Absolutely. Progressives of pallor -- hipster racists -- have said and done some of the most bigoted things I've ever witnessed in my life and gotten away with it. And as one viewer noted, Colbert "obviously didn't use satire very effectively, because most people aren't talking about the Redskins issue or Dan Snyder." Indeed, many of his fans were too busy tweeting non-satirical anti-Asian bigotry, misogyny and ugly death threats.
I'm not surprised at many on the right who tripped over themselves to side with the entertainment industry Cool People -- or "coolists," as Greg Gutfeld brilliantly captures them in his new book, "Not Cool." In elite circles, it is uncool to say you think Stephen Colbert is unfunny. The suck-ups go along with Colbert's painfully inane Ching-Chong Ding-Dong schtick because they want to show they "get" Cool Colbert's "satire."
Wake up. These smug liberal elites are not your allies in the fight against political correctness run amok. Colbert and company marginalize conservatism while laughing all the way to the bank. Why would conservatives enable them? Gutfeld explains: "Pick a political, cultural or moral universe, and in each one it's the cool who seek to punish, mock or thwart the uncool. They do this freely and without much resistance, for exacting cool revenge is so common that the uncool let it happen without a fight -- a sort of cultural Stockholm syndrome."
Asians are also convenient, "uncool" punching bags. Unlike offended Muslim fanatics (see "The Mohammed Cartoons"), they're not going to issue fatwas, threaten beheadings or blow themselves up. Coward Colbert and his cable news persona would never dare offend the jihad-friendly brigade at CAIR; the only jabs he takes are at "Islamophobe" conservatives who worry about the poisonous spread of sharia law.
Colbert defenders "circled the wagons," as Rush Limbaugh pointed out on Monday, by griping instead about Limbaugh's 18-second imitation on radio of a Chinese government translator in 2011. "Notice how to get this guy out of the mess that he's in -- apparently they have to link him to me. Why? I don't know."
Colbert needs partisan sycophants to go along with his selective clown-nose act, every step of the way, to provide him total immunity as he scrapes the bottom of the "comedy" barrel to portray the right as racist. Blaming Rush (or lazily mocking my 2004 book on internment, profiling and national security, as Colbert did on his show Monday night) deflects from the genuine offense taken by Park and other liberals at Colbert's widespread dissemination of yellowface caricatures.
The Comedy Central political operatives need to make conservatives the demons so his audience forgets that liberal actress Rosie O'Donnell gratuitously mocked "ching-chong" accents on the mainstream ABC network show "The View" while her liberal co-hosts and audience laughed it up.
Or that Vice President Joe Biden mocked Indian accents in a 2012 jobs speech in New Hampshire and complained in 2008 on the campaign trail that "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."
Or that former Secretary of State and leading 2016 Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton repeatedly has employed a degrading Southern accent to pander to black voters. (Google "I ain't noways tired.")
Or that Democrat Bob Beckel made fun of Louisiana GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal's State of the Union response address by likening it to a "call center ad in Mumbai."
Or that mainstream Hollywood productions from "Breakfast at Tiffany's" (Mickey Rooney's I.Y. Yunioshi) to "Sixteen Candles" (Long Duk Dong) to the sitcoms "How I Met Your Mother" (an entire show in yellowface) and "2 Broke Girls" (Han Lee) have done more to disseminate and profit off of cheap, vulgar, bucktoothed Asian stereotypes than Rush Limbaugh ever did.
It's not the outrage that's manufactured, but Colbert's sanctimonious myth of left-wing purity and his phony indictment of conservatives as the predominant forces of intolerance in America.
But what do I know, Mr. Colbert? Me so stupid. You so funny.
Sex and Race Equality
Walter E. Williams gets satirical
There are several race and sex issues that need addressing. Let's look at a few of them with an ear to these questions: Should we insist upon equal treatment of people by race and sex or tolerate differences in treatment? And just how equal are people by race and sex in the first place?
According to the National Institutes of Health, male infants 1 to 3 months old should be fed 472 to 572 calories per day, whereas their female counterparts should receive 438 to 521 calories per day (http://tinyurl.com/nj35qvh). That's an official sex-based caloric 10 percent rip-off of baby females. In addition to this government-sanctioned war on women, one wonders whether the NIH has a race-based caloric rip-off where they recommend that black newborns receive fewer calories than white newborns.
Anyone who watches "Lockdown" on television will see gross racial segregation in California prisons -- such as Pelican Bay, Corcoran and San Quentin -- where prisoners are housed by race. Colored signs have hung above living quarters -- for example, blue for black inmates, white for white, red, green or pink for Hispanic, and yellow for others (http://tinyurl.com/m7n4df8). Sometimes inmate yard times are racially segregated.
Being 78 years old and having lived through an era in which I saw signs for white and colored water fountains, waiting rooms and toilets, I find California's racial segregation practices offensive. Prison Law Office, a public interest law firm that seeks justice for prisoners, criticizes such flagrant racial segregation policy, but I question its sincerity.
Criticizing racial segregation while not uttering one word about flagrant prison sex segregation is at the minimum, two-faced. In my book, if the all-male military bastion is being eliminated, it stands to reason that prison segregation by sex should be eliminated. No decent American would accept the idea of a prison for blacks and another one for whites. If we value equality, we shouldn't accept one prison for men and another for women. There should be integration.
Speaking of sex segregation, there have been recent calls to end the ban on women in combat units, but there's no mention of the Army's sexist physical fitness test. For a male 17-21 years of age to pass, he must do 35 pushups, do 47 situps and run 2 miles in 16 minutes, 36 seconds. His female counterpart, who receives the same pay, can pass the fitness test by doing a mere 13 pushups, doing 47 situps and running 2 miles in 19 minutes, 42 seconds (http://tinyurl.com/yaphmzl).
How can anyone who values equality and self-respect tolerate this gross discrimination? You say, "Williams, what's your solution?" I say we should either force women to come up to the physical fitness standards for men or pass men who meet the female standards of fitness. Maybe we should ask our adversaries which is better -- raising female fitness standards or lowering those of males.
There are a couple of other inequalities that cannot be justified, much less tolerated, in a society that values equality. Jews are only 3 percent of the U.S. population, but they take 39 percent of U.S. Nobel laureates. That's a gross disparity, for which there is no moral justification. Ask any academic, intellectual, or civil rights leader and he'll tell you that equality and diversity means that people are to be represented across socioeconomic lines according to their numerical representation in the population. The fact that Jews are 39 percent of U.S. Nobel laureates can mean only one thing -- they are taking the rightful Nobel laureates of other racial groups.
Jews are not the only people taking more than their fair share of things. Blacks are 13 percent of the population but have taken nearly 80 percent of the player jobs in the National Basketball Association. Compounding that injustice, they are highest-paid NBA players. Blacks are also guilty of taking 66 percent, an unfair share, of professional football jobs.
Any American sharing the value of race and sex equality and diversity should find these and other differences offensive and demand that the liberal and progressive elements in society eliminate them.
Mozilla CEO Learns that Liberals Hate Diversity
Over 65,000 people have signed a left-wing petition to get the CEO of Mozilla fired because he’s an intolerant bigot… Or something. The self-proclaimed police-of-tolerance have been attacking CEO Brendon Eich for his “unacceptable” views on gay marriage (he’s against it). And with a stunning amount of unaware irony, progressives have decided that they are incapable of tolerating a tech CEO who is an advocate of traditional marriage.
That’s right: A petition has been started to toss Mozilla’s CEO out on the street, because gay marriage advocates are too intolerant to allow such “bigotry” in the corporate tech world. On the CREDO action website (a website dedicated to proliferating liberal petitions), over 65,000 left wing activists, impressionable liberals, and misguided agents of inclusivity, have signed their names to the petition. According to the site:
As the representative of a global brand that represents openness and is committed to equality and inclusiveness, Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality. If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire Eich immediately.
Right… Because the First Amendment clearly states that citizens have the right to free speech, unless that speech offends someone. Apparently, by being CEO, Eich has forfeited the right to hold his own personal views on the social and economic concerns of the 21st century. Evidently, earning money puts executives at the whim of a few liberal hacks who can’t tolerate dissenting opinion or open debate.
Of course, these “progressive” advocates of censorship have “every right in the world” to ask for Eich’s dismissal… But, the irony of asking him to be fired because they feel he isn’t “tolerant” enough seems woefully lost on the petition signees. (Seriously, people: Pick up a dictionary once in a while.)
Eich ending up in the cross hairs of Liberal activists is just the latest example of the Left’s love for political-correctness-inspired censorship efforts. A Harvard student already proposed eliminating Academic Freedom in exchange for “Academic Justice”. Even Liberal icons, such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, have argued that wealthy conservative activists should be silenced, audited, or restricted in their political activities. (No word yet on Harry Reid’s feelings about George Soros, or millionaire Hollywood moguls who donate to the Democrat Party.)
Strangely, I don’t think these same outraged liberals would be quite as disgusted if he gave to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, or the Southern Poverty Law Center. Of course, this is part of the reason why the Left has a track-record of success on the issue of “political correctness.” They feel empowered and righteous in bullying, intimidating, and silencing their ideological opponents.
Brendon Eich, hopefully, will not back down from his beliefs… After all, it’s still a (relatively) free nation. If his personal philanthropic activities, or personal convictions, offend the California-inspired progressive movement, they can download a different browser. His job should not be contingent on his definition of marriage. Intellectual diversity, after all, is a consequence of a free and open society.
Of course grasping the concept of intellectual diversity might be a little too “grown-up” for a bunch of California liberals prone to temper tantrums.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.