Skip to main content

#OCCUPYJIHAD@MSNBCNN


Well apparently one of the deranged loonjobs regularly part of the MSNBC(NN) parade of freaks, Mona Eltahawy, took a break from defaming reality on-air to shoot off her big pseudo-victimized mouth in a NYC subway station while busily going about destroying property and practically assaulting a woman who tried to stop her lunacy...

...until reality (the real one, not the insane leftist "reality-based" reality, e.g. delusion world) decided to pay her a little visit.



It's been a long time since I can remember cheering the arrival of the police anywhere, much less the NYPD, but this had me out of my seat rooting (and laughing) when I watched.  But it wasn't because Eltahawy was pink spray-painting some political poster in an insipidly staged, albeit revealingly-frenzied, stunt (with cameras rolling, of course).  No, what did it for me was her repeated lunging and aggressive paint-spraying of a person standing in the way of her criminal mischief.

The scolded-child, quivering-lip-stuck-out look on this idiot's face as she realizes she's under arrest is priceless. (Note to Mona: repeatedly reaching into your bag while you're being arrested is NOT a smart move).

I am as much a Ron Paul/Gary Johnson supporting anti-interventionist as you get, but the Islamic jihadist movement and its violent, maniacal, murderous devotees will, sooner or later, have to be dealt with before nuclear weapons become their tools. It's just fatal ignorance to think this isn't an inevitable real-world danger.

It sucks that the BushObama wars have gotten us to this place, repeatedly swatting the hornets' nest to kill off the relatively-few offending insects, but like it or not we're here now.

Putting up posters or spray-painting over them does nothing towards confronting and dealing this reality, but this little video episode sure does highlight the berzerk, twisted nature of media pundit wackjobs who endorse, and even act on, the notion that free speech means accommodating active, and here even VIOLENT, designs to suppress or altogether obliterate free speech exercised PEACEFULLY by others who reject such designs.

H/T: NewsBusters

Comments

Anonymous said…
Because the destruction of property is non-violent.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...