From Brett McCracken:

“As a ‘movement,’ Occupy Wall Street doesn’t reveal an organized grassroots agenda as much as it represents a general climate of anger, frustration, and antagonism against the ‘haves’–a suspiciously narrow (1%), heartless, no good very bad group whose entrepreneurial success and capitalistic success apparently oppress the 99% of us have-nots who are being unfairly kept from sharing in the 1 percent’s riches.

“Mostly, though, Occupy Wall Street represents the natural discontent of an entitled generation raised on the notion that we deserve things, that the government owes us something, that everything we want should be accessible, and that somehow we are not responsible if we don’t end up quite as successful in life as we’d hoped. It’s a blame-shifting problem. It’s an inability to delay gratification or go without that which we believe is our right or destiny. And it’s a problem both on the micro/individual and macro/government level.”

(I reviewed Brett’s book, Hipster Christianity, for the Christian Research Journal.)

(AP Photo/Andrew Burton)

Update: Wall Street Journal (emphasis added): “But to the extent that the mainly young demonstrators have a valid complaint, it’s that they are trying to bust their way into an economy where there is one job for every five job-seekers, and where youth unemployment runs north of 18%. That is a cause for frustration, if not outrage.

“The question is, outrage at whom? On Wednesday, Occupy Wall Street marched on J.P. Morgan Chase’s headquarters, after having protested outside CEO Jamie Dimon’s home the previous day. That’s odd, seeing that J.P. Morgan didn’t take on excessive mortgage risk and didn’t need (although it was forced to take) TARP money. The demonstrators also picketed the home of hedge fund mogul John Paulson, who made much of his recent fortune betting against the housing bubble, not helping to inflate it.
…
“Still, if anyone in the Occupy Wall Street movement wants an intellectually honest explanation for why they can’t find a job, they might start by considering what happens to an economy when the White House decides to make pinatas out of the financial-services industry (roughly 6%, or $828 billion, of U.S. GDP), the energy industry (about 7.5% of GDP, or $1 trillion), and millionaires and billionaires (who paid 20.4% of all federal income taxes in 2009). And don’t forget the Administration’s rhetorical volleys against individual companies like Anthem Blue Cross, AIG and Bank of America, or against Chrysler’s bondholders, or various other alleged malefactors of wealth.”

Michelle Malkin (emphasis added): “Unlike Tea Party activists who focused like a laser beam on politicians in both parties responsible for redistributing wealth to Big Business cronies by force, the Occupy Wall Street movement is everywhere and nowhere. The entitled Kamp Alinsky Kids are poaching WiFi and trespassing on private property under the guise of ‘social justice,’ but in plain service of themselves.”

From the Right Sphere: “Since ‘Occupy Boston’ has forced the cancellation of the Greenway Mobile Food Fest, The Right Sphere is trying to raise $1,000 for the Greater Boston Food Bank, which was supposed to benefit from that event. Please consider donating as little as $1, $5 or $10 to the Greater Boston Food Bank to help defray the Occupy movement’s damage to Boston’s nonprofits and to to show that we can put our money where our mouth is and support the needy in Boston.”

If I blogged about every stupid remark uttered by the ignorant, blogging would consume me, because dumbness is endless. For instance, Tavis Smiley, host of his own program on PBS, equated Christianity with Islamofaciscm. An excerpt of his interview with atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

Ali: Major Nidal Hasan, the military guy who in November shot 13 of his colleagues and injured 32, he’s going to be on trial pretty soon, I think this week, the young man, Faisal Shahzad, in Times Square who tried to blow innocent people that he doesn’t know up, these guys are acting on conviction. Somehow, the idea got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter.

Tavis: But Christians do that every single day in this country.

Ali: Do they blow people up (unintelligible)?

Tavis: Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that’s what Columbine is – I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians – and I happen to be a Christian. That’s back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read. There are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country, where you live and work.

Stunning, isn’t it? When was the last time you read about someone blowing up people in the name of Christ? And what does Columbine have to do with Christianity? Is Smiley saying the murderers mowed down their classmates in name of Christ, with heaven on their minds? What would make Smiley say something so obviously untrue? Even Ali the atheist is stunned:

Ali: Well, I think you and I disagree, not so much on is there extremism in Christianity – I fully acknowledge that. There are people who want to take the bible and use passages from the bible as justification for violent behavior. I’m not denying that in the least. But mainstream Christians in the 21st century are more like you.

I’m an atheist, I’m not a Christian, but they are more like you – accepting of other religions and tolerant. The latest example, “South Park,” where Jesus Christ was made fun of, watching pornography, people, Christians, maybe have been annoyed by it but the producers of “South Park” were not threatened by Christians.

PBS’s ombudsman posted Smiley’s explanation of his dumb remarks, in response to viewer backlash. As expected, his response is impotent and non-responsive. He doesn’t explain why he, a so-called Christian, said Christians kill people “every single day in this country.” The least he could is admit he was using hyperbole to make an ill-conceived point. But, no. Just the same old putrid, politically correct pabulum.

Update: I’d be remiss if I didn’t link to this: Barack Obama plans to send up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the Mexican border. We’ll need more than that, but it’s start. Looks like somebody’s shoring up his defenses for November. Keep demanding border security, Americans.

Come to think of it, would their purpose entail keeping people from crossing the border? That’s not a stupid question. Knowing Obama, it’s totally serious.
———————————————————————————

Here’s a somewhat humorous yet entirely frustrating consequence of a liberal governor hamstringing law enforcement on the illegal “immigration” front:

A drunk “suspected” illegal alien rear-ended an anti-immigration enforcement lawmaker in Massachusetts. The idiot reportedly laughed and said, “Nothing is going to happen to me, man.”

Governor Deval Patrick, who called Obama’s policy critics seditious, revoked former governor Mitt Romney’s order empowering law enforcement to investigate a suspect’s immigration status.

If nothing else, this incident will generate public discussion about the state’s impotence to protect citizens from drunk-driving illegal aliens and rally voters to “persuade” Patrick to reinstate the order (won’t happen, but voters can still raise a ruckus). Isaias Naranjo was lucid enough to know how lax America is about enforcing its immigration laws. Shameful.

(Hat tip: Nice Deb)

As you may know, President Barack Obama doesn’t like beleaguered border states exercising their duty to protect citizens. His interest lies in protecting illegal aliens and pandering to Hispanics to secure votes.

Eric Holder, Obama’s attorney general, said the Department of Justice may sue Arizona for its audacity. He’ll have to find a way around a 2002 DOJ memo that recognizes states’ “inherent power” to arrest illegal aliens for federal law violations.

And he’ll have to sue California as well. According to the state penal code, “Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws,” and attempt to “verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws.”

Before DOJ files that lawsuit, Holder and his legion of lawyers should search the penal laws of every state in the Union to determine which ones authorize law enforcement agencies to assist the federal government with immigration enforcement. If the feds single out Arizona when other states have similar statutes, won’t that be…discriminatory?

I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around a lot of things lately. May be hormonal. Or seasonal. Or those bloody chirping house finches on the front door. What sort of country cares more about the well-being of non-citizens who violate the law and less about taxpaying citizens trying to undo some of the damage caused by the federal government’s dereliction of duty?

And consider this: The federal government needs the assistance of state and local agencies on immigration enforcement. Does ICE rely on civilian tips only, or does this agency work with local law enforcement?

In 2005, I spoke to an ICE spokesperson about the Herndon, Virginia, day labor center mess for a column I was writing. I asked her what ICE intended to do about illegal aliens in Herndon. After trying to avoid answering the question, she finally said, “We continue to work closely with law enforcement partners to enforce immigration laws, and I don’t have anything to say about a local issue.”

We continue to work closely with law enforcement partners to enforce immigration laws…

In light of Senator Harry Reid implying that the Republican party defended slavery, I’m republishing my review of Wrong On Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past, by Bruce Bartlett:

“[V]irtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.”

On December 5, 2002, Republican senator Trent Lott toasted 100-year-old Republican senator Strom Thurmond, a former segregationist, at a private birthday party, saying that if the rest of the country had voted for Thurmond for president as he had (Thurmond ran in 1948 as a Dixiecrat), “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.”

About a year and a half later, on the Senate floor (and on taxpayers’ time), Democrat Chris Dodd said that Democrat Robert Byrd (who said on cable TV a few years earlier that he’d seen a lot of “white niggers” in his time), a former segregationist and KKK recruiter, would have been “a great senator” during America’s founding, crafting of the Constitution, and the Civil War.

The backlash against Lott was fierce. He apologized and groveled on Black Entertainment Television (BET) but was eventually drummed out of his leadership post. The backlash against Dodd? Non-existent. He neither prostrated himself before the PC gods nor played the fool on BET.

This double standard was the result of a long distorted history of both parties. The Democrats, seen as the civil rights party, supported slavery, opposed civil rights legislation, instituted the “Black Codes,” and created the Jim Crow system. The Republican Party, in contrast, was founded in opposition to slavery, and supported post-Civil War and Civil Rights Movement-era legislation.

“All of the racism that we associate with [the southern] region of the country originated with and was enforced by elected Democrats,” writes Bruce Bartlett, a former domestic policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush. In Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past, Bartlett goes deep into the history of the Democratic Party and attempts to set the record straight.

Bartlett discusses the motivations of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson to maintain slavery and how Andrew Johnson (whom the author says was “a Democrat his whole life”) tried to block post-Civil War legislation designed to protect newly freed slaves. He includes obscure figures like Senator Benjamin Tillman from South Carolina, whose “consistent theme…was that black men had some sort of compulsion to mate with white women,” and Senator Theodore Bilbo from Mississippi, whose “permanent resolution of the race problem” in 1938 was to send blacks back to Africa and/or create a 49th state for them “somewhere in the West.”

Woodrow Wilson, a liberal who implemented progressive reforms while in office, also instituted racial segregation throughout the federal government. And Bartlett notes that Wilson’s attorney general “did far more to repress free speech and political freedom” than Senator Joe McCarthy, a Republican, ever attempted. But when was the last time Hollywood made a movie about A. Mitchell Palmer?

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had a “reputation for being a progressive on the race issue,” wasn’t much better on civil rights. He appointed a Klan member to the Supreme Court and ordered the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. Republican Dwight Eisenhower, “conventionally portrayed as having done nothing for blacks during his eight years,” passed civil rights bills in 1957 (the first since Reconstruction) and 1960. Eisenhower also sent federal troops to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Bartlett praises Democrat Harry Truman for signing an executive order establishing a presidential committee on civil rights, an unpopular move in the party, but spares none for President John F. Kennedy, who receives far more credit on civil rights than he deserves. Kennedy did nothing substantive on civil rights, contends Bartlett, and what he did do was largely symbolic as he tried to avoid antagonizing Southern Democrats. He credits President Lyndon B. Johnson for “finally repudiating both his own segregationist past and the Democratic Party’s” in the wake of Kennedy’s assassination.

And what about President Richard M. Nixon’s so-called Southern strategy? Bartlett calls it a myth. There was no strategy “to carry racist votes through coded messages about crime and welfare, as is often alleged.” During his campaign in 1968, Nixon emphasized his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and picked Spiro Agnew as his vice president, a man reputed to be strong on civil rights.

The shift in Southern voting patterns from Democratic to Republican had to have been about race, right? According to Bartlett, economic changes in the South were the primary factor. During the Democrats’ political reign, the South had been the poorest region. As the South’s wealth increased, southerners became receptive to Republican messages of low taxes and small government.

People tend to forget that Nixon pushed to desegregate schools, denying federal aid to segregated school districts. “Just one month into his presidency,” Bartlett writes, “any idea that Nixon was pursuing a Southern strategy had been thoroughly discredited.”

Unfortunately, Nixon also implemented government race preferences.

Bartlett’s meticulously researched Wrong on Race concludes with suggestions on how Republicans can reach out to black voters, including connecting through immigration policy and this stunner: getting behind the idea of slavery reparations. Bartlett tries to make the case on legal, public policy, and political grounds.

If reaching out to black voters has to involve reparations race pandering, don’t bother. (Besides, it wouldn’t work, anyway.) Despite that shocker at the end, Wrong on Race provides ammunition for Republicans fed up with being called racists

Addendum: A Twitter follower pointed me to must-read “The Democrats’ Missing History.”

Related posts:

• Democratic And Republican Platforms Through The Years
• Two Old Men, Two Different Standards

Update: 10/12: Hadn’t realized Glenn Reynolds linked to this post. Vetting problems, indeed.

—————————————————————————-

The literary term irony is used in different ways. For example, something that appears to mean one thing but actually means another is irony. The incongruity between the actual result of an event and the expected result of an event is irony.

Our president appointed a homosexual activist named Kevin Jennings to head the Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Jennings’s present job entails “creating safe schools, responding to crises, drug abuse and violence prevention, ensuring the health and well being of students and promoting development of good character and citizenship.”

Twenty-one years ago, while Jennings was a high school teacher, a teenage boy (a student) told him he was “involved” with a man he met in a public bathroom. Jennings didn’t call the police and report the molestation/statutory rape, however; he told the boy to use condoms. (Source)

This is irony: A man charged to lead an office focused on the well-being of children failed to protect a child preyed upon by an adult. Rather than calling the boy’s parents and/or child protective services and/or warning the kid to stay away from strange men in public bathrooms, he advises him to use a condom to avoid contracting nasty diseases while being buggered.

Then again, should we be surprised?

Totally and absolutely disgusting.

And ironic.

I’ll admit it. I like some of her movies, but I loathe her politics. Her portrayal of Guinan on one of my all-time favorite series, “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” always gave me a she’s-not-so-bad impression every time I watched an episode with her in it.

But using her national platform to excuse the rape of a drugged 13-year-old, and even saying it wasn’t rape, is the proverbial straw that broke this camel’s back.

The question is, will more feminists in the blogosphere speak out against Whoopi Goldberg, or will they defend and excuse a fellow feminist the way she defends and excuses child rapist Roman Polanski?

Get her, Sherri!

And get a load of Melissa “Laura Ingalls” Gilbert. Good grief.

Why the hair-trigger urge to defend Polanski instead of bringing the full weight of your defense for the child? Unless you’re his defense lawyer, it’s misguided. Is it an effort to be “fair” or “objective”? Don’t get it at all.

Update: People are focusing on Goldberg’s “it wasn’t rape-rape” comment. Bad enough, yes, but the really awful parts are when she said straight out the drugged 13-year-old was not raped, and her rationale for saying so. Watch the first video in this post.

Previous post: WP Columnist Defends Roman Polanski

…and fails to disclose that her husband is lobbying for his release.

In 1977, 44-year-old movie director Roman Polanski pled guilty to raping a drunk and drugged 13-year-old girl. After plea-bargaining the drug/rape/sodomy charges down to unlawful sexual conduct with a child under 14 and serving 42 days for the evaluation period, Polanski fled to England, then France, to avoid extradition. He’d been on the run ever since. Until September 26. Polanski was arrested in Switzerland.

Anne Applebaum, Washington Post columnist, defended the child rapist, writing that he “can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.”

Got it? That Polanski and his family were in concentration camps and his wife was murdered are “mitigating circumstances” to his avoiding serving time for drugging and violating an intoxicated child. This was a column Applebaum should have written just to get it off her chest, then deleted. I’ve done the same many times myself.

Blogger Patterico found out that Applebaum’s husband, Radoslaw Sikorski, is a Polish politician who’s lobbying for the dismissal of Polanski’s case, and Applebaum failed to disclose this fact.

Uncovering this kind of thing is one of the reasons people blog. Back in the day, you had to find undisclosed conflicts of interest going through hard-copy documents (if you lacked personal knowledge), then calling the newspaper and/or sending a letter to the editor. Nowadays, a few minutes on Google and a blog will do.

Addendum: In a child rapist’s defense, Applebaum said it’s possible Polanski didn’t know the victim’s real age. Not likely, since he had to obtain the mother’s permission for the so-called photo shoot. Forgot to mention that part, and was reminded reading Hot Air.

Check out Polanski’s grand jury testimony.

Have you heard the latest? Alex Rosenwald, media outreach director for Americans for Limited Government (ALG), says an NBC producer named Jane Stone got nasty in response to the group’s e-mail critical of ACORN. As you may recall, ACORN’s the organization that advises people how to cheat the government and set up whorehouses.

Rosenwald claims Stone responded to his e-mail this way: “Bite me Jew boy!”

Stone and NBC are denying she sent that particular response. She says her response was a simple, “Take me off this list!”

From: Stone, Jane (NBC Universal)
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:57 PM
To: ‘arosenwald@getliberty.org’
Subject: Re: ALG Calls on Congress to “Put Up or Shut Up” on Defunding ACORN

Take me off this list!

————————–
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Stone, Jane (NBC Universal) [Jane.Stone@nbcuni.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:57 PM
To: Alex Rosenwald
Subject: Re: ALG Calls on Congress to “Put Up or Shut Up” on Defunding ACORN

Bite me Jew boy!

————————–
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Newsbusters’s Matt Sheffield asked ALG for the message’s header, which the group is supposed to send today. Until that happens, it’s he said/she said, so I’ll reserve comments until then. But I will say this: I hope it’s not a hoax. Liberals bloggers, reporters, and everyone else will jump all over it, and rightly so, and try to discredit conservatives.

I have doubts about Stone’s alleged response, because I can’t imagine a producer being that stupid. Wait a second…yes, I can.

A couple years ago, a cable news producer e-mailed and asked for my comment on the Don “nappy-headed hos” Imus mess, which I’d intended to ignore. Later that day, I got an e-mail from someone from a Yahoo! account with the same name. The man called me an a**hole and a self-hater because I criticized Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts, for promising to repeal a 1913 law that prohibited out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would be illegal in their home state.

I e-mailed the dude at his work (twice) and Yahoo! accounts, trying to figure out what was going on. I received no reply from either account. I concluded that I’d caught a cable network producer red-handed sending hate e-mail from his work computer. I figured if he were not the Yahoo! person, he’d quickly e-mail back to set the record straight. He didn’t.

I could’ve turned his stupidity into a big ruckus but chose not to, though I’m sure he was sweating bullets. That was revenge enough for me. I still have both e-mails. Maybe I’ll shoot him an e-mail just to say, “Hi!”

Update II: Ha! The old “English isn’t my first language” trick.

Update: ACORN guy with “contacts” in Tijuana fired.

Congress cuts off ACORN funding.

***
I kiddeth not. Instead of calling the police, an ACORN employee (probably former now) who works on “immigration concerns” listens casually as the “pimp” and “whore” talk about smuggling girls from El Salvador and says Tijuana would be a good place for the drop-off because he has contacts there.

What a Dodo he is, falling for this. Time for the feds to investigate, no? More at Big Government.

Previous posts:

• New York Times on ACORN
• ACORN’s Intelligence Deficiency

Update: Mission almost accomplished? ACORN suspends new-client operations.

More videos to come? Check out Big Government.

***

This story should have been on the front page above the fold, not on page 14. But I suppose one should be “grateful” the Gray Lady covered it at all. Need I say, if this were a conservative scandal…

An excerpt (emphasis added):

“For months during last year’s presidential race, conservatives sought to tar the Obama campaign with accusations of voter fraud and other transgressions by the national community organizing group Acorn, which had done some work for the campaign.

“But it took amateur actors, posing as a prostitute and a pimp and recorded on hidden cameras in visits to Acorn offices, to send government officials scrambling in recent days to sever ties with the organization.
…
“On one of the videos, an unidentified Acorn employee in Washington, told that the pair were engaging in prostitution, explained how to disguise their activities in dealing with bankers and the government. “You don’t put down ‘I’m a prostitute’ or ‘I’m a lady of the night, and this is where I’m getting my income,’” the Acorn worker said.

“At the Baltimore office, a helpful worker suggested describing the prostitute on a loan application as a “freelance performing artist” and said she and the pimp might want to claim some of the young Salvadoran prostitutes as dependents and collect the child tax credit for them.”

Watch Part I of the undercover sting in the DC Office below. Watch the rest at Big Government.

Related post: ACORN’s Intelligence Deficiency

***Scroll for updates***

You’ve got to be pretty stupid to fall for this.

It’s old news (in blog-time), but I’m doing five things at once these days. Anyway, so you’ve heard about ACORN, the leftist, taxpayer-supported group involved in voter fraud and acquiring mortgage loans for people who can’t afford the loans, and then shouting, “Predatory lending!” with straight faces? Turns out ACORN, or at least some employees, are as dumb as dirt.

Failing to realize the seriousness of fraud accusations and the attention they bring, including the possibility of sting operations, two ACORN employees in Baltimore actually advised a ridiculously dressed “pimp” and his “whore” on how to fly under the radar operating a whorehouse with underage prostitutes. The undercover pair caught everything on tape. As I watched it, all I could do was shake my head at the idiocy. Listen to these idiots:

Did you catch the “prostitute” saying she was sixteen? Unbelievable. And check out the get-up on that “pimp.” Over the top, glaringly outlandlish, stereotypical, and obvious.

The employees have been fired.

That was last week. This week, the undercover pair released a video of ACORN employees in Brooklyn giving similar whorehouse-hiding advice.

Fortunately, congressional Democrats were embarrassed enough to cut off ACORN’s funding in the housing bill. The amendment passed 83 to 7.

I guess this means ACORN is unofficially officially disavowed, at least as far as the U.S. Census is concerned. Care to release a statement, Mr. President?

Update: Gotta be kidding. Glenn Beck says a woman at ACORN in San Bernardino admits on tape to killing her husband. He’s making us wait until 4 p.m. for details. Interviewing “pimp” and “whore” now.

By the way, ACORN operates illegally in Maryland.

More ACORN mess at Big Government. Check out the video of DC’s ACORN office. Sheesh!

Later: Okay, here it is. ACORN woman, former whore, confesses to killing her husband. She’s probably lying, but the video is valuable nonetheless to show the kind of people ACORN hires.

I hadn’t planned to blog about this Henry Louis Gates mess. Frankly, it’s embarrassing. A so-called intelligent man, Harvard professor, respected scholar and all that, shouting at police and invoking racism where there was none. In that moment, he embodied the stereotype of the loud and ignorant-sounding black person shouting racism whenever something negative happens to him, even if the whole thing is his fault.

What convinced me to blog about Gates was this piece of news: Lucia Whalen, a white woman who reported what she thought was a break-in and who should be commended for giving a rat’s butt in the first place, did not mention the race of the two men she saw trying to pry open Gates’s door. (Source)

Whalen was accused of calling the cops because the men were black, not because they appeared to breaking into a neighbor’s house. The lack of racial reference on the 911 tape tends to refute that. Unfortunately, the lack of racist behavior on the cops’ or Whalen’s part will not change the minds of people who believe that Gates, who should know better, is some sort of oppressed martyr. Idiotic.

Going off on the police, no matter how angry you are, is an ignorant thing to do. And anyone who, at this point, given all that’s come out about this incident, still believes Gates was the victim of racism is willfully ignorant.

Gates has some issues to work out. Perhaps he needs a vacation. At any rate, he definitely needs a shrink.

And unnecessarily defensive:

Good grief, woman.

Hollywood liberals kill me. They really do. Any white American who doesn’t agree with them is a redneck, and black Americans who aren’t liberal actors are poor dumb creatures who need white women like Janeane Garafolo to stand up and “defend” us from the rednecks.

While I’m working on exactly what I’d say to Garafolo face should we ever meet, check out the video below.

More like Katrina Pierson, please:

Here’s the link to Pierson’s speech video.