Archive for Loony Leftists

#i’lllietoyou

We were among many who reported on the big-hearted, soft-headed response to Muslim terrorism in Sydney, Australia, under the hashtag illridewithyou.

As with “hands up, don’t shoot” and “I can’t breathe”, it either didn’t happen at all, or not as portrayed:

As news of the siege unfolded, I scrolled through updates on my phone, searching for the latest information. My brother works in the city of Sydney. My husband’s office is a government building near Martin Place. I knew all were safe and sound, but I wanted to know more.

At this point I saw a woman on the train start to fiddle with her headscarf.

Confession time. In my Facebook status, I editorialised. She wasn’t sitting next to me. She was a bit away, towards the other end of the carriage. Like most people she had been looking at her phone, then slowly started to unpin her scarf.

Tears sprang to my eyes and I was struck by feelings of anger, sadness and bitterness. It was in this mindset that I punched the first status update into my phone, hoping my friends would take a moment to think about the victims of the siege who were not in the cafe.

I spent the rest of the journey staring – rudely – at the back of her uncovered head. I wanted to talk to her, but had no idea what to say. Anything that came to mind seemed tokenistic and patronising. She might not even be Muslim or she could have just been warm! Besides, I was in the “quiet carriage” where even conversation is banned.

By sheer fluke, we got off at the same station, and some part of me decided saying something would be a good thing. Rather than quiz her about her choice of clothing, I thought if I simply offered to walk her to her destination, it might help.

It’s hard to describe the moment when humans, and complete strangers, have a conversation with no words. I wanted to tell her I was sorry for so many things – for overstepping the mark, for making assumptions about a complete stranger and for belonging to a culture where racism was part of her everyday experience.

But none of those words came out, and our near silent encounter was over in a moment.

My second status was written as a heartbreaking postscript to my first. While the woman appeared to appreciate my gesture, we had both left defeated and deflated. What good is one small action against an avalanche of ignorance?

What ignorance? She just finished telling us that she barely spoke to the woman, and didn’t even know if she was Muslim. She made everything up.

I wanted to tell her I was sorry for so many things – for overstepping the mark, for making assumptions about a complete stranger and for belonging to a culture where racism was part of her everyday experience.

WTF? Fellow Australians were being held hostage, some ultimately to die, and she’s apologizing (wordlessly) to a woman who might have been Hispanic, South Asian, Buddhist, or just cold, for a “culture where racism was part of her everyday experience”? Had I been that anonymous woman, I might have let her walk with me, but only out of fear what such a psycho would do if I refused.

Lesson No. 6,348 that liberalism is based on unreality and lies.

Comments

They Can’t Breathe (Anymore) [UPDATED] [AGAIN]

The head of the NYPD union suggested Mayor Bill De Blasio would not be welcome at any police funerals after his remarks critical of the force.

Here’s his chance:

A blue wall of silently seething police officers turned their backs on Mayor de Blasio Saturday night — literally.

As the mayor and his entourage snaked through a jammed third-floor corridor at Woodhull Hospital, where two officers had been pronounced dead just hours earlier, scores of grieving cops faced the walls — and away from the leader they believe has failed them.

Earlier, de Blasio approached a cluster of cops at the Brooklyn Hospital and offered, “We’re all in this together.”

“No we’re not,” an officer replied tersely, according to a cop who witnessed the icy scene.

The rank-and-file’s anger at the mayor was palpable citywide.

“It’s f–king open season on us right now,” one officer said. “When is he going to step up?”

Speaking moments after the bodies of Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were driven away, as hundreds of cops stood at somber attention, Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch said, “There’s blood on many hands tonight.”

“That blood…starts on the steps of City Hall, in the Office of the Mayor,” he said.

Many cops said they blame deBlasio for helping to create a climate of distrust in cops that has turned them into targets.

They pointed to Hizzoner just last week calling an assault by Brooklyn Bridge protesters on two NYPD lieutenants an ­“alleged” assault, even as dramatic video of the attack emerged.

De Blasio revealed in an ABC News interview earlier this month that he and First Lady Chirlane McCray had instructed their biracial son, Dante, about the “dangers” that police pose.

New Yorkers have learned perhaps a little later than the rest of us that elections have consequences. Your sicko mayor made no secret of who he was, and still you elected him. May you choke on the consequences.

Speaking of choking:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s oldest son Zach was the victim of a strong-arm robbery near the family’s North Side Chicago home Friday night. According to a police report obtained by the Chicago Tribune, the robbery took place around 10 p.m., when two men approached the 17-year-old

Emanuel as he was walking down the street.

One of the robbers then:

“…placed his arm around the victim’s neck in a rear chokehold,” and the second one struck the teen with a fist, knocking him to the ground. The robbers took the teen’s cellphone and patted him down, the police report said.

“The offenders then asked the victim, ‘What else you got?’ (and) forced the victim to enter his security code to unlock the phone,” the police report said.

The robbers then ran away. The teen was treated for cuts and bruises on his face by a personal physician at his home, according to the report.

It was not reported whether young Zach could breathe.

PS: Fear not. The President is on the case:

President Barack Obama was briefed on the ambush killing of two NYPD cops while on the golf course in Hawaii this afternoon, according to the White House press pool report.

“The President has been briefed on the Brooklyn police shooting. White House officials continue to monitor the situation,” reported Wall Street Journal’s Carol Lee.

Obama endured harsh criticism for golfing minutes after issuing a statement on the beheading of James Foley at the hands of Muslim militants in September.

“You know, it is always a challenge when you’re supposed to be on vacation because you’re followed everywhere. There’s always going to be some tough news somewhere,” Obama said. “I should have anticipated the optics.”

Optics? What optics?

UPDATE:
Miraculously, this guy can still breathe:

A third cop narrowly escaped with his life Saturday night when a suspect pointed a gun directly at the officer’s head and pulled the trigger in The Bronx — not realizing it was empty.

Cops went to East 140th Street in Mott Haven at 9 p.m. on reports of a man shooting out windows with a.357 caliber revolver. They spotted the suspect, identified as Raymond Leonardo, 18, and ordered him to drop the gun. Instead, he took point blank aim at one of the officers, officials said.

When the gun didn’t work, he put it in his pocket and ran. Cops tackled him a few blocks away. “It looks like he used up all of his bullets’’ firing at the windows, a law-enforcement source said.

Note that, with their characteristic professionalism, the cops handled the deadly suspect with retraint [sic], merely tackling him after he tried to shoot at them.

Meanwhile, police sources told the newspaper about the continuing threats they are getting, including tweets like this one, posted after the assassination-style murders of Officers Wenjian Lu and Rafael Ramos by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley: “Kill em all i’m on the way to NY now #shootthepolice 2 more going down tomorrow.”

I’m asking only out of curiosity, not insinuation, but were any Allahu Akbars shouted at the time of the shootings?

AGAIN:
Misery loves company:

A Florida police officer was killed in a shooting early on Sunday, and a suspect was in custody, according to a sheriff’s office and local media reports.

Comments

Hangin’ With My Homies

College campuses are reliably leftist, and they don’t come more leftist than Berkeley.

Which is why we’re not surprised:

Effigies of black lynching victims found hanging on a Northern California college campus have sparked debate over whether the images are powerful protest art or just plain tasteless and racist.

The photographic images were found Saturday morning hanging at two prominent spots on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. They were discovered a few hours before a demonstration against police brutality organized by a black student union was to start. Police are investigating, but officials say they still don’t know who hanged the images or the motivation.

“It’s unclear if this is racially motivated effort or an effort at something else,” campus spokeswoman Claire Holmes said.

Do you think if these effigies had been displayed at, say, Bob Jones University, there would have been a question about the “motivation”? Why give the benefit of the doubt to the socialist redoubt in the Bay Area?

Because there is a “motivation”, however “queer”:

Sunday Dec. 14, 5 p.m.: An anonymous artists’ collective has taken responsibility for the effigies strung up in nooses at UC Berkeley on Saturday.

The statement from the collective:

“We are a collective of queer and POC artists responsible for the images of historical lynchings posted to several locations in Berkeley and Oakland,” reads a notice the group found posted on campus Sunday. “These images connect past events to present ones – referencing endemic faultlines of hatred and persecution that are and should be deeply unsettling to the American consciousness. We choose to remain anonymous because this is not about us as artists, but about the growing movement to address these pervasive wrongs.”

“For those who think these images are no longer relevant to the social framework in which black Americans exist everyday – we respectfully disagree. Garner, Brown, and others are victims of systemic racism. For those who think these images depict crimes and attitudes too distasteful to be seen .. we respectfully disagree. Our society must never forget. For those under the mistaken assumption that the images themselves were intended as an act of racism – we vehemently disagree and intended only the confrontation of historical context.”

“We apologize solely and profusely to Black Americans who felt further attacked by this work. We are sorry – your pain is ours, our families’, our history’s. To all, each image represents a true life ended by an unimaginable act of ignorance and human cruelty: Laura Nelson, George Meadows, Michael Donald, Charlie Hale, Garfield Burley, Curtis Brown. We urge you to further research the lives and deaths of these individuals. History must be confronted.”

POC means persons of color, I take it. Not colored persons, but persons of color. Nice of them to apologize, though. Five words out of 230, buried deep within the screed, directed “solely” at 13% of Americans.

Some of whom aren’t buying:

Berkeley Pastor Michael McBride told the Oakland Tribune that he sees no redeeming quality to the display.

“This is racial terror they are experiencing,” said McBride, who is also co-director of Intervarsity’s Black Campus Ministries at UC Berkeley. “I don’t care if it was a white person, a black person, a blue person, if it was an adversary or ally, these images strewed across campus have terrorized my students.”

I followed the suggestion of the “queers” and POCs and looked up every name they listed. All but one were lynched over a century ago. Hanged by the neck until dead by a terrorist mob yes, but none more recent than 1911. Did the queers and the POCs think we didn’t know that happened? And why equate murdered innocents with two people, Michael Brown and Eric Garner, whose actual law-breaking led people to call the cops?

I will give them full credit for re-exposing one lynching we may have wished to forget. That of Michael Donald in 1981.

Berkeley, man. No [bleeping] wonder.

Comments

The Real Tinsel Underneath

If I’m ever in trouble with the law, remind me never to engage Juan Williams as my defense attorney:

White liberal hypocrisy on race is so delightful for conservatives.

White conservatives are always on defense against charges of hating President Obama because he is black; suppressing minority voters and indifference to the difficulty minorities have living everyday with the legacy of slavery and a culture filled with stereotypes of black inferiority.

We are? Says who and since when? To the debatable extent we hate at all, we hate President Obama for the same reasons independents and liberals hate him: because he’s a lying weenie. Race has nothing to do with it, at least not for us. (As conservatives, we have the least reason to resort to racial animosity: we hate his policies for the content of their character, not the color of his skin.)

And find me one charge of suppressing minority voters that is not laughable on its face.

As for “indifference to the difficulty minorities have living everyday with the legacy of slavery and a culture filled with stereotypes of black inferiority,” I plead guilty to confusion, not indifference. Most conservatives I know would love nothing more than for black people to overcome “the legacy of slavery”, abolished more than 150 years ago by a Republican. We have done everything we can think of to help, from congressional acts to affirmative action to cultural and individual education—to electing a son of Africa to president. I think it’s no longer up to us. If there is a legacy of slavery, we’re not indifferent to it, we’re ignorant of it. Might this conservative suggest it’s in the heads of those who perceive it?

I don’t know what he means by “a culture filled with stereotypes of black inferiority”, and I won’t even try to guess.

But his piece started so promisingly!

This week white conservatives can take a break, step out of the dock and make way for white liberals.

Hacked emails from Hollywood’s white, liberal elite show them belittling the president by assuming his taste in movies is confined to racial stereotypes fitting just another black guy.

“Should I ask him if he likes’ DJANGO?’” asked Amy Pascal, a Sony Pictures’ co-chair. Scott Rudin, a movie producer, responds: “Or ‘The Butler’… or ‘Ride-Along. ‘ I bet he likes Kevin Hart.”

Where to begin unpacking that powder keg of race and class bigotry?

I’ve already come to the defense of my white liberal elite friends. This is immature banter, not racism. (Classist, on the other hand—they’ll need different counsel to defend that charge.) The president, any president, is the last person to be shielded from ridicule. Just ask all the living ex-presidents. We teased Bush 41 about “read my lips”, Clinton about weight and waitresses, Bush 43 about being a war criminal—what else are we going to rib Obama about, his ears? That would make him really mad.

If a conservative had written it, however, we’d need 40 days and 40 nights of rain to put out the fires of indignation (which might explain the deluges in California).

Pascal and Rudin have both apologized for the content of their private emails. “The content of my e-mails to Scott were insensitive and inappropriate but are not an accurate reflection of who I am. Although this was a private communication that was stolen, I accept full responsibility for what I wrote and apologize to everyone who was offended.”

Rudin gave a statement to Deadline.com, explaining that his emails were “written in haste and without much thought or sensitivity,” he understood the notes were out of line. “I made a series of remarks that were meant only to be funny, but in the cold light of day, they are in fact thoughtless and insensitive,” he said.

Isn’t that enough? Private notes, stolen and exposed, lead to humiliation and apology. That’s a closed circle as far as I’m concerned.

But let Juan Williams make his point:

Pascal and Rudin, on their way to meet the president at a Democratic fundraiser, have no hesitation about painting Obama into this limited, one-dimensional personality. What they have revealed is how demeaning and patronizing their liberal minds can be even when the man is the leader of the nation.

Chris Rock, the comedian and actor, recently said Hollywood is a “white industry… it just is.” He added they don’t hire black men.

I imagine they do hire some black people. But those black people have to color inside the lines of what white liberals think is the right kind of black person. Black conservatives have no chance in that world.

Black intellectuals and even black left wingers have no chance either. But that is a different story. In the restrictive confines of the white liberal world they would be seen as threatening black people.

Jamie Foxx, Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson, Don Cheadle, Halle Berry, Angela Bassett, and Kerry Washington come to mind as obvious refutations, but let’s assume Rock and William mean more than just beautiful actors and actresses.

But while we’re on that point:

But one aspect of the film that shouldn’t have made folks count No Good Deed out of the running for box office glory? Its cast of black stars. In fact, it is the latest in a string of movies led by black actors that have “overperformed” at the box office, any number of which should have put to rest the still-prevailing notion that films with all or primarily black casts don’t do well at the box office.

[M]ovie studios should take a page from their television counterparts and recognize that audiences are hungry for more diversity on the big screen.

After these emails, I think you can take that to the bank.

Comments

Liberal Darling Watch

The Left moves on with alacrity from its heroes and heroines who turn into embarrassments. But we in Bloodthirstan love a good rubberneck. We can always make time to look up Cindy Sheehan and the Occupy Movement to see how much further they’ve fallen from the poop-strew depths that now look like heaven on high.

And, of course, Sandra Fluke, everyone’s favorite Pill-scrounger:

Sometimes the Fool of the Week is tough to call. I have to consider the nominee, consider the comments, consider the context and then judge the comment fairly.

Other times.. the “Fool” just falls into my lap.

This week that happened. Just moments after the CIA interrogation report was released.

Sandra Fluke…tweeted this:

Sandra Fluke @SandraFluke
Horrified by #TortureReport & by how it mirrors domestic challenges of #sexualassault & violence against men of color by authority figures.

Yep. Sandra Fluke just compared Eric Garner and sexual assault victims. Wait for it… to terrorists..

In other words, Sandra Fluke. You take a terrorist report and make it about racism & rape?

For that asinine tweet.. Sandra Fluke, you are the “Fool of the Week.”

It took me several readings to agree with the writer’s interpretation. I often find 140 characters insufficient to portray meaning, especially when so many of those characters are given over to hashtags. But I accept his reading. Sandra Fluke thinks the late Eric Garner is no different from Khalid Sheik Mohammed or Lena Dunham.

Would it be ungallant of me to offer to pay her contraceptive bills for life? Anything but her progeny.

Comments

Look What the Hack Dragged In!

Today, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of North Korea:

Hollywood film producer Scott Rudin and Sony Pictures Chair Amy Pascal have been further embarrassed by leaked emails released as a result of the Sony hack, this time mocking President Barack Obama in a set of racist email exchanges.

On the eve of a fundraising breakfast being attended by the President at the home of DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, Pascal and Rudin went over things she could discuss with Obama while at the event in October 2013.

‘Should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?’ Pascal asks Rudin, a reference to the 2012 Quentin Tarantino film Django Unchained that dealt with the subject of slavery in the antebellum South.

’12 years,’ responds Rudin, referencing another slavery film, this time Steve McQueen’s 2013 Academy Award-winning work 12 Years a Slave, a very violent and brutal look at the injustice and abuse endured by the millions forced into slavery in America.

The pair then keep going, listing as many current films starring black actors as they can name, including Lee Daniels’ The Butler and two Kevin Hart movies, Think Like a Man and Ride Along.
‘I bet he likes Kevin Hart,’ says Rudin at one point.

This all come just one day after Rudin called Angelina Jolie ‘a minimally talented spoiled brat’ in emails discussing who would direct her upcoming remake of the classic film flop Cleopatra.

Ok, so Rudin’s no dummy. We’ve determined that. But he and Pascal are committed Democrat donors, intimately involved with the Hollywood elite. Love it!

To say this is racist is absurd. Lots of people liked all of the movies they named, including lots of black people, I’ll wager. Their comments are indeed mocking, but since when has mocking the president been racist? Hollywood backed this turkey the way they backed Ishtar. Maybe this is how they react in private to backing a loser.

Comments

Hail to the Chief!

What will Elizabeth Warren say when she breaks her pledge not to run for prezzy?

So Sioux me:

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren becomes the officially anointed shadow candidate of the left today in an old-fashioned, Kremlin-style “vote” where she’s the only contender and there is really only one choice: Run, Elizabeth, Run.

The online “voting” run by the influential liberal organization, MoveOn.org, to launch a presidential-style campaign to draft Warren may have been slightly rigged, but could give the Massachusetts senator and her breathless backers a significant new push to test the waters against presumed front-runner Hillary Clinton.

“Our members want to see a contested Democratic primary,” said Ben Wikler, Washington director of MoveOn.org. “This moment was made for Elizabeth Warren. So we’re putting it to a full vote.”

Okay, ‘vote’ may not be the right word. The old communist leaders of Russia and China would have been envious of the percentage Warren will get when the results of the online coronation are announced late this morning. Joe Biden, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, sadly, were left off the MoveOn.org ballot.

The liberal group’s 8 million members did have a chance to say they oppose a draft Warren effort, and while they may not have been shipped off to Siberia like in the old communist days, they did risk getting kicked off MoveOn’s mailing list. But there’s no need for that kind of terrifying threat.

“We are pretty confident we are going to soar way above the 50 percent threshold,” a cheeky Wikler said.

Yuk-yuk!

Warren’s repeated denials that she “isn’t” running aren’t deterring progressive groups. They were only more emboldened by the former Harvard professor’s comments in the hard-hitting People magazine interview where she said “I don’t think so” to the presidential question.

To Warren enthusiasts, that means full-steam ahead.

I’m immune to her charms, but her supporters see Kate Upton in a tankini when they look at her.

She sure knows hot to whip them into a frenzy:

Senator Elizabeth Warren, in an increasingly public spat with the White House, on Tuesday issued her fiercest salvo yet about President Obama’s choice for a key Treasury Department post.

The Massachusetts Democrat — in a 4½-page speech with 34 footnotes — rebutted criticism about her opposition to Antonio Weiss, the nominee for undersecretary of domestic finance. She denounced his qualifications for the job, cast the relationship between Wall Street and the White House as dangerously unbalanced, and further dug a divide between the administration and her allies.

In a strikingly personal jab at Weiss and a broader knock at the White House, Warren noted Weiss’s employer, the investment bank and asset manager Lazard, would give Weiss a multimillion-dollar payment if he left for public service.

“Mr. Weiss’s friends at Lazard are giving him a golden parachute valued at about $20 million as he goes into government service,” Warren said at a Capitol Hill event. “For me, this is one spin of the revolving door too many. Enough is enough.”

“Hey there, liberal weenie. Is that a ballot in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?”

Comments

So He Was a Composite Rapist!

Just like Obama’s white girlfriend who wept because she could never be black.

No wonder Lena Dunham named her alleged rapist “Barry”:

The Wrap now reports that Random House has put out a statement exonerating this Identifiable Conservative Barry, and saying that the alleged rapist wasn’t really named Barry at all:

As indicated on the copyright page of Not That Kind of Girl by Lena Dunham, some names and identifying details in the book have been changed. The name ‘Barry’ referenced in the book is a pseudonym. Random House, on our own behalf and on behalf of our author, regrets the confusion that has led attorney Aaron Minc to post on GoFundMe on behalf of his client, whose first name is Barry.

We are offering to pay the fees Mr. Minc has billed his client to date. Our offer will allow Mr. Minc and his client to donate all of the crowd-funding raised to not-for-profit organizations assisting survivors of rape and sexual assault.

Appalling. The book wasn’t a novel; it was a memoir, offered to readers as such. The copyright page, which I suspect few people read, does say that “Some names and identifying details have been changed,” but it certainly doesn’t tell people which ones.

How different in tone from the earlier exchange between Ms. Dunham and her lawyers and the websites that quoted her “memoir” verbatim on her sexual curiosity toward her baby sister. From snarling and snapping to cringing and submission. It still doesn’t explain why she so convincingly fingered a guy for rape, only to exonerate him under threat of a lawsuit. (All previous entreaties had been ignored.)

We trust that “Barry the Republican”, who didn’t know Ms. Dunham, much less have sex with her, much, much less have rough, unconsensual sex with her, can get on with his life. And we wish Ms. Dunham luck with hers. She’s got the fame and the fortune—what a country!—but she’s otherwise pretty much empty. If it’s love she seeks, instead of metrosexual preening and self-important posing, she’d be better off with Barry the Republican than with Barry the Democrat.

Comments

Rape or Rape Rape?

“Hands up, don’t shoot” never happened.

Shouting “I can’t breathe!” means you can.

Whatever happened at University of Virginia, it was nothing like Rolling Stone reported.

Now, Lena Dunham (rather, again Lena Dunham).

I’m starting to believe in the innocence of Bill Cosby:

It has been more than 4 days since Breitbart News published a detailed investigative report debunking Lena Dunham’s claim in her memoir that as an Oberlin college student she had been raped by a mustachioed campus Republican named Barry. Thus far, the reaction from Ms. Dunham and her numerous representatives has been total silence despite inquiries from numerous media outlets.

The afternoon prior to publishing our report, Breitbart News reached out to Dunham and her publisher with a detailed message left for Dunham’s publicist at Random House. We left the same message for the person described as the publicists back-up.

As of yet, no one has responded to those inquiries.

Thursday, the Daily Mail also attempted to reach both Random House and Dunham’s representatives: “Calls to Random House, the publisher of Not That Kind of Girl, and to Dunham’s literary agent by MailOnline were not immediately returned Thursday.” As of Saturday evening, the Daily Mail reports, those calls remain unreturned.

Breitbart News can also confirm that a major entertainment publication has not heard back from the Dunham camp in reference to queries about our investigative report.

It is unusual for Dunham and her representatives to be silent in the wake of negative stories. Recently, Dunham herself publicly lashed out at National Review and Truth Revolt over two separate unflattering stories. In the case of Truth Revolt, within hours of publishing a story about Dunham’s bizarre behavior towards her younger sister, the Website (run by our own Ben Shapiro) received a cease and desist letter and threat of suit from Dunham’s high-powered attorney.

In today’s journalism, fact-checking is denialism. Libel law may be the only check on rampant, unchecked journalistic malpractice.

Dunham received upwards of $3.7 million for Random House for her memoir. According to Saturday’s statement, Barry One, who has a young family, has burned through a large part of his savings due to the legal fees he’s incurred while trying to protect his name.

Barry One is considering filing a libel suit against Dunham.

Lena?

Lena Dunham @lenadunham · 14h
Superpower: she can quickly locate the available Xanax in any foreign country

Looks like you’ll need ‘em, honey. Better Xanax than cake.

God knows why your editor didn’t query your accusation, why Random House’s lawyers didn’t give you the third-degree, why you decided to libel “Barry” in the first place. But it’s going to cost you. We suggest Hostess pastries if you can no longer afford whole cakes.

Comments (1)

Hey, Whoopi Goldberg, Is This Rape Rape?

Try not to let this story destroy your faith in dumpy exhibitionists with a loose grip on reality:

Breitbart News was (un)able to verify [] Dunham’s story of being raped by a campus Republican named Barry.

On top of the name Barry, which Dunham does not identify as a pseudonym (more on the importance of this below), Dunham drops close to a dozen specific clues about the identity of the man she alleges raped her as a 19-year-old student. Some of the details are personality traits like his being a “poor loser” at poker. Other details are quite specific. For instance, Dunham informs us her rapist sported a flamboyant mustache, worked at the campus library, and even names the radio talk show he hosted.

To be sure we get the point, on three occasions Dunham tells her readers that her attacker is a Republican or a conservative, and a prominent one at that — no less than the “campus’s resident conservative.”

For weeks, and to no avail, using phone and email and online searches, Breitbart News was able to verify just one of these details. Like everyone else interested, we immediately found that there indeed was a prominent Republican named Barry who attended Oberlin at the time in question.

Whatever her motives, Dunham is pointing her powerful finger at this man. But as you will read in the details below, the facts do not point back at him. Not even close. This man is by all accounts (including his own) innocent.

Nonetheless, even though she is aware of the suspicion under which she placed this man, to our knowledge, Dunham has yet to clear his name.

But she does plenty to sully it. In the article (which quotes her bestselling book), she provides gruesome details. I’m sorry, fictional gruesome details.

Anyone with half a brain and access to Google has already discovered that, during Dunham’s time at Oberlin College, there was a prominent Republican named Barry who was politically active and quite well-known.

Breitbart News is not going to name this man. Instead, we will refer to him throughout as “Barry One.”

Last month, Barry One told National Review’s Kevin Williamson that “he has never met Dunham and had no relationship with her.”

Our independent investigation backs that up.

Under scrutiny, Dunham’s rape story didn’t just fall apart; it evaporated into pixie dust and blew away.

You can read for yourself.

I am left as I am often left with Ms. Dunham: sick to my stomach. If she was raped, it was not as she tells it. Maybe her recall is faulty, though she went out of her way to implicate someone who would appear to be innocent of the crime. Why? Was she raped by a different man, but she hung the rap on an innocent Republican? Why? Was she not raped at all, but borrowed the gore from a real victim’s account? Again, why? Did she just make the whole thing up, down to the last lusty pant? If so, one can speculate as to why.

PS: You might think this stellar example of investigative journalism would be congratulated. No, you wouldn’t, not really. And you’d be right:

Slate writer Amanda Marcotte ripped into Breitbart News over an investigative piece published Thursday that calls into question Lena Dunham’s story of being raped as a 19 year-old by a campus Republican named Barry.

Responding to a tweet from Bloomberg Politics’ Dave Weigel that linked the story, Marcotte tweeted back, “It’s really time for people to understand that rape denialism is like Holocaust denialism: Broad refusal to accept reality.”

Wait, I thought global warming deniers were like Holocaust deniers. Godwin’s Law strikes again!

Comments

Left Wing Civility Watch

I knew I had used this post title before, but this is the 22nd time:

The real haters are in the media, some of them the openly left-leaning media and some of them claiming to be mainstream. But oh, how vilely they spew their hatred.

They accuse us of being “haters.” They, by contrast, are rational, fair-minded, and kindly. Really, they are. Consider, for example, the gentlemanly Chris Matthews on Hardball on October 27, speaking of the Republican nominee for Senate from North Carolina: “What’s worse: Thom Tillis, or Ebola?”

Here’s Andrea Mitchell reporting on MSNBC on Election Night about why Republicans were winning: “It was a scare tactic by the Republican opponents of Democratic incumbents, who tried to focus on ISIS and Ebola in the scariest, most nonfactual ways.”

Here’s Alan Pyke, deputy economic policy editor for the far-left Think Progress blog in reaction to the Fox News Channel’s coverage of the unrest in Ferguson: “I hope Roger Ailes dies slow, painful, and soon. The evil that man has done to the American tapestry is unprecedented for an individual.”

Matthews (again), with regard to conservative support for voter-ID laws: “Believing they can’t convert the African-American vote, they’ve decided to slaughter it. . . . This is murder in broad daylight.”

But at least our economics aren’t lethal — merely bigoted. Just ask MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, who on April 30 discerned our real motives: “I think not raising the minimum wage is a racist policy. . . . Not raising the wage, the minimum wage, is every bit as racist as comments made by Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling. It’s just displayed in a different way.”

Charles Pierce, who wrote this blog post about Palin’s speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference: “[Senator John] McCain should pay a heavy price for unleashing this ignorant, two-wheeled bilewagon [Sarah Palin] on the country’s politics. If you think she’s a legitimate political leader, you’re an idiot and a sucker, and I feel sorry for you. . . . She is the living representation of the infantilization of American politics, a poisonous Grimm Sister telling toxic fairy tales to audiences drunk on fear and hate and nonsense. . . . It was the address of a malignant child delivered to an audience of malignant children. If you applauded, you’re an idiot and I feel sorry for you.”

Compared with that, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski was quite kind to Palin, calling her merely “a multimillion-dollar moron selling a message.”

Max Brooks on HBO with Bill Maher pretended to be a Deep Thinker delivering a sober analysis. The rise of the Tea Party “has happened before in history,” he sagely intoned. “In Germany in the ’20s and ’30s…

Gawker’s staff writer Adam Weinstein shared this bit of policy advice:

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars. . . . Denialists should face jail. They should face fines. . . . I’m talking about Rush and his multimillion-dollar ilk in the disinformation business. I’m talking about Americans for Prosperity and the businesses and billionaires who back its obfuscatory propaganda. . . . Those malcontents must be punished and stopped.

In case anybody missed the point, the blog post’s headline was “Arrest Climate-Change Deniers.”

These are talking heads, but are they any different from our co-workers, our acquaintances, our family members? We called it Bush Derangement Syndrome back when Bush was president. But Bush hasn’t been president for almost six years. It should have been called Liberal Hate Syndrome, and there is still no known cure. (Of course, the first step is wanting to be cured.)

Comments

Indian Giver

Elizabeth Warren, the ersatz Indian, the chutzpah-Cherokee, the knockoff Navajo, the hoaxin’ Hopi, the imposter Apache, the hemi-demi Seminole is not shy about taking scalps.

Even of her own tribesmen:

“We have to face it: The game is rigged in Congress.”

Wait, isn’t she in Congress? Why, I believe she’s our senior senator!

“We face a basic question in this country: Who does this government work for?” she asked in a 12-minute speech at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. “Is government there only to advance the interests of the rich and powerful? Does government exercise its power only for those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers? Is there only to strengthen the strong and enrich the wealthy? Or does government work for all of us? Is government working to build opportunities, not only for some of our kids, but for all of our kids.”

Not just for the kids who claim to be an amerind, you mean. Me, I’m so lame-brained, it only occurs to me now to ask: who checks if you check the box claiming to be an ethnicity that even family “lore” can’t support? Is Harvard University going to send Skip Gates to swab your cheek and test your DNA?

But sticking to the point, how delicious is the irony that she’s banging on about economic justice at the Beverly-bleeping-Wilshire Hotel? The shameless Shoshone.

“The problem is everywhere in Washington,” she said. “Power is becoming more more concentrated on one side. And I can go through a long list of examples where powerful industries and lobbyists get spacial [sic] tax deals. They get regulatory loopholes that let them get richer and more powerful while everyone else gets left behind. It happens over and over again in Congress.”

Of the three political institutions in Washington, the presidency, the Senate, and the House, her party has ruled two out of three the past four years, and all three the two years before that. I’m as open to economic populism as the next sucker, but I got a brain.

Comments (1)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »