Well, I ran out of stuff to write about again, so I popped over to Renew America for a quick, easy wingnut fix. Let’s kick off the festivities with our old, old, old, old, old, old, old friend Carey Roberts.

As longtime readers know, Carey writes a lot about the evils of feminism. Actually, that’s all he writes about. Seriously, if Jesus and Buddha appeared above New York and challenged Godzilla and Satan to a tag-team steel cage death match, Roberts would react by accusing the leftist media of giving Buddha preferential treatment for possessing humungous, effeminate Buddha boobs.

With this in mind, you may wonder if there’s any subject that Carey Roberts can’t turn into a rambling tirade against radical feminism, no matter how obscure and unrelated it may seem. Carey answers this question in today’s column and, unsurprisingly, the answer is “Sadly, No!”

Rape hysteria, redux

Carey Roberts
August 16, 2005

Can you imagine the German Bundestag issuing a formal apology for the Nazi atrocities, but then leaving out the fact that Jews were the primary victims?

Earlier this summer the U.S. Senate apologized for its earlier failures to approve anti-lynching legislation. The resolution was supported by liberal senators such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Biden of Delaware, and others.

OK, let’s think about this before we go any further. Roberts starts off by saying it would be absurd to discuss Nazi atrocities in World War II without acknowledging that Jews were the primary victims. Fair enough. Then he segues into a discussion of the Senate’s recent apology for not passing anti-lynching legislation in the 1930s. Based on this, we can probably assume that Roberts is going to say that the Senate’s resolution didn’t recognize blacks as the main targets of lynching.

But if you read the resolution (PDF), it specifically says, “at least 4,742 people, predominantly African-Americans, were reported lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968.” So why is Roberts implying that the resolution didn’t acknowledge which people were the primary victims of lynching? Let’s find out (I should warn you that what follows will likely make your goddamn head fucking explode, so you might want to skip down to Wes Vernon’s column if you don’t have a strong stomach for complete and utter stupidity):

The resolution is well-intentioned, but it air-brushes out one essential fact: Virtually all of the victims were male, many of whom were accused of ravishing well-to-do white women.

Well yes, but lynching also affected the families of the victims, as thousands of wives and children were left without husbands and fathers. The point is that while lynching disproportionately targeted black men, it had disastrous ramifications for the entire black community.

Later in the column, Carey drifts even further into the Twlight Zone:

In 1991 Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court. He came to the post with a Yale Law School degree and broad legal experience. But then he was ambushed by Anita Hill, who claimed that Thomas had made sexually inappropriate remarks several years before.

Smarting under the allegation, Thomas complained to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was the victim of “a high-tech lynching.”

In other words, any allegation of sexual misconduct is analogous with racist practice of lynching, even if the allegation is made by someone of the same race.

Mr. Thomas was saying that the fear of male sexuality that fueled the lynching of Black men decades before was the same hysteria that now drove people to obsess over Anita Hill’s over-blown allegation.

But, but, but… it wasn’t the fear of male sexuality that drove lynching, it was the fear of black male sexuality.

Carey, I’d like you to examine the following picture:

As you can see, one of these things is an apple, while the other one is an orange. As someone who’s lived on this planet for the last 135 years, you should really know the difference.

On June 9, 2005 Sen. Joe Biden introduced the Violence Against Women Act, a bill that aims to thwart sexual and physical assaults of women. A reading of the proposed law describes a world made precarious by men. Sadly, the Act appeals to the same chivalrous instincts as when the zealotry surrounding virtuous womanhood swept our nation a century ago.

Is Carey saying that if you speak out against hitting women, you’re pandering to “chivalrous instincts?” Sadly, I think he is.

Only four days later, on June 13, the Senate expressed its “deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets” to the victims of lynching and their descendants.

And why did the Senate resolution forget to mention men in its apology?

Because they hate penises, Carey. That’s the only reasonable explanation.

Because the last thing that presidential hopeful Biden wants is for persons to draw historic parallels between the Violence Against Women Act which portends the widescale curtailment of men’s civil liberties, and the injustices that befell wrongly-accused Black men generations ago.

Yes, you may remember that key provision in the Violence Against Women Act that advocated deploying vigilante mobs to track down and execute all men accused of rape. Get outta here, you maniac!

Our next pundit is Wes Vernon, who writes that liberals are evil commie redistributionists who stay up at night thinking of cruel new ways to prevent Paris Hilton from getting a tax break:

The death tax and class hatred

Wes Vernon
August 15, 2005

QUESTION: What do liberals and hard core Marxists have in common?

They’re both hated by conservatives and neo-Nazis?

ANSWER: They both wake up each morning wondering how they are going to punish success and make whipping boys of entrepreneurs.

Which is why no entreprenuers ever give money to the Democratic Party.

Marxists use the term “evil capitalists.”

Liberals simply demonize them as “the rich.”

Or if you’re a Republican, you call them “frat brothers.” (Unless they give money to Democrats, in which case they’re “Jews who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust.”)

Whether you say “evil capitalists” or “the rich,” the meaning is the same ? i.e. anyone who works for a living and thinks he or she knows better than government bureaucrats as to how best to spend his/her own money.

So if you work hard and become rich, you, not the government, should be in charge of how your money is spent. Therefore, Bill Gates should be put in charge of running the war in Iraq, because his wealth makes him more qualified to combat an insurgency than those so-called “career military officers” (a euphemism for “weasely government hacks”).

That mindset is what is at work in the current congressional battle for permanent repeal of the Death Tax.

Under the current law, the Death Tax is on a sliding phase-out scale, and will be completely off the books in 2010. Then it bounces back at the full rate on January 1, 2011. In other words, if you want your heirs to inherit the benefits of your years of sweat and toil, the best year for you to die is 2010. If you don’t die until 2011 or thereafter, too bad.

And all you rich kids should have your parents knocked off by 2010- otherwise, you’ll have to pay up the ass.

The fact that these tax cuts are set to return like Dracula down the road is one of several factors inhibiting what would otherwise be a skyrocketing stock market. Investors are getting mixed messages.

Yes, it’s not things like rising oil prices that are keeping markets down. No, the stock market is obviously underperfoming because of a tax that affects roughly 2% of the population and isn’t set to fully return for another six years.

Finally, we have Nathan Tabor, who’s written an eloquent essay describing the differences between conservatives and liberals (basically, the former loves freedom, while the latter does not):

Conservatives, on the other hand, truly love freedom ? so much so that when necessary, they are willing to fight to preserve and protect it, as well as to export it around the world and extend it to other peoples less fortunate than we are.

Because there’s no better way to protect freedom than by invading and occupying a country that posed no material threat.

When Clinton later sought NATO military action in the former Yugoslavia, intervening in behalf of the desperate Bosnian Muslims who were being slaughtered in a ruthless campaign of ethnic cleansing by the Serbs, most Conservatives did not protest ? despite the fact that no vital U.S. interest was being threatened in the Balkans.

Uh, Nate? What part of “Sadly, No!” do you not understand?

“You can support the troops but not the president.”
—Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”
—Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
—Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
—Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
—Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain the y have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
—Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
—Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Governor George W Bush (R-TX)

So only a small handful of Republicans, including the House Majority Leader, the then-Senate Majority Leader, and the future President of the United States, criticized Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia. Have you had enough “Sadly, No!” Nate, or shall I taunt you a second time?

Here’s the hard truth. Liberals are pro-abortion, pro-death, pro-gay, and anti-American. They don’t love our freedoms, let alone the Constitution that guarantees them. And they don’t really mind the State’s using war to advance their utopian goals of universal peace.

Yes, because if there’s one thing that’ll bring about universal peace, it’s war. Get outta here, ya maniac!