Sunday, April 1, 2007

Michelle Malkin: Crazy Bitch


April 1, 2007

That great American terror-fighter and Upright Citizen Michelle-the-Malignant Malkin - has found a few minutes between patrols in Ramadi to take a stand in the fight against terror.

And you can too!

Just take the handy-dandy little "pledge" - you can even buy a button!!! - and you too can be "John Doe" and let the whole world know what a jingoistic tool you really are by emblazoning your delusion on your lapel!!!

Go read her fucking oath - but where it says "Muslim" substitute "Jew." Where it says "Imam" read "Rabbi."

Where it says "I am John Doe" read that as "I'm a paranoid, delusional, goose-stepping moron."

Hear that? That is the sound of breaking glass.

If your newspaper carries this hateful bitch - this self-loathing immigrant - contact the editorial board. We got Ann Coulter and Linda Bowles banished from the op-eds in this town - can we get the Star to come to their senses about this idiot child, too?

I refuse to pay for a paper that has her byline. I have a partial-week subscription. If her column runs, I call the paper and get a credit for that days paper. The days they subsidize her, I refuse to subsidize them.

UPDATE: The anonymous comments all come from one troll - Here are his IP Numbers:

209.85.132.130
and

64.233.184.130

He is posting from Mountain View California - Zip code 94043

[Sigh. That really was too easy. In honor of 01 April I thought I would try my hand at over-the-top shrill - you know, like Malkin and Coulter have made their bread and butter? I guess I would be better at it than I had previously thought if I ever decide to sell my soul...But for now, just know that I am kinda chuckling over here, because folks, you have been punked.]

27 comments:

supergirlest said...

what i don't understand is how any of the people that think like this woman does rationalizes being EXACTLY like what they rail against. unfreakingbelievable.

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't "unfreakingbelievable" be hyphenated?

Let's just look at one or two matters objectively before we start coining new words to epitomize our bile.

First: The six "imams" who caused a stir on the U.S. Airways flight took seats on the plane in a configuration that mirrored exactly the way in which 9/11 terrorists overtook Flight 77. This was a deliberately provocative act.

Second: Those same "imams," though none was particularly overweight, requested seat-belt extenders -- long straps with heavy buckles on the ends that can be used as weapons -- and very conspicuously left them on the floor during the flight. All later lied about having done so.

Third: Other passengers, in possession of a healthy instinct for self-preservation (and perhaps having seen some news coverage of 9/11), expressed their concern to flight attendants. Now, the six "imams" have filed lawsuits against those passengers for "discrimination." If that legal action is successful, they will have removed the right of ordinary American passengers to register even well-founded concerns about fellow passengers --in an era when terrorists have clearly established that airliners are one of their weapons of choice. That is a grave danger to the traveling public, and a request for that public preemptively to surrender.

It is not Asians, nor Jews, nor Buddhists, nor Christians, nor conservative Republicans, nor blacks who have terrorized the world with suicide bombings and mass killings for the past decade and a half. It is radical Muslims. They have done so in an organized, patient and well financed manner.

Malkin's campaign is simply meant to make a statement: that when radical Muslims try another murderous act, they will meet resistance.

That's not hate. It amounts to a realistic assessment of the facts of recent history -- and a statement of self-preservation.

Please stop hyperventilating.

Anonymous said...

That's right. Show YOUR tolerance and belief in free speech by trying to stifle those with whom you don't agree. The whole object of that manifesto, is that Americans who see suspicious behavior, should be protected from lawsuits from those exhibiting suspicious behavior. But I don't expect rational thought to turn on the lightbulb in your closed mind. You'll remain in the dark oblivious to the problems we face in America from religious extremists who wish to do harm. Carry on with your meaningless rants.

Anonymous said...

Last time I checked, Jews and Rabbi's were not takeing over planes and ramming them into buildings... About the only racist, paranoid and delusional thinking here appears to be the author of this blog.

Anonymous said...

Hey, little girl, does your mother know what you're doing? Filthy little blue girl. What? Weren't you breast fed? Now you need the nanny state blue demicritters to take care of you? Booo Hoooo. So all you can do is lambast Michelle and call names. Pitiful indeed little girl.

Anonymous said...

You're right, that John Doe thing doesn't make any sense at all. I'm going to find the leader of my local neighborhood watch effort and start a smear campaign against him with the rest of the neighbors, because, you know, what a fucking idiot he must be. Preventing crime is fascist and racist, because like you say, if you take "criminal" and substitute "black dude", how fucking racist is that??? Thank God I'm smart and stuff.

Schratboy said...

Change your handle to small-minded, racist, liberal dumbass chic living in Missouri.

skippy said...

the whole object of that manifesto, is that americans who see suspicious behavior, should be protected from lawsuits from those exhibiting suspicious behavior.

lol! only in malkins' paranoid america can people believe its their right to be legally protected from somebody simply because they think the other party's behavior is "suspicious."

Edger said...

Let's see:

"stop hyperventilating"
"turn on the lightbulb in your closed mind"
"racist, paranoid and delusional"
"Filthy little blue girl"


Hmm. And all anonymous too. Not even enough cojones to use fake names. The malkinites are certainly showing their class this morning aren't they? Heh.

Ahhhhh, well... I guess it's hard for some.

They're nothing to worry about. And it's not surprising they would be feeling a little insecure by now, I imagine, being such trendies.

Myra Langerhas said...

So edger's definition of 'class' is to post a horrible pic of somebody, call'em a bitch and work to shut them up.

Perverse.

Edger said...

Lovely picture of you there, Myra!

[ That was pure unadulterated ad hom, btw. As exampled by the comments from you and your ::friends:: here today. Don't turn your back on them, Myra ;-) ]

Frank said...

Bush is eeeeeeeevil.
Malkin is eeeeeevil.
Haliburton (except when George Soros is making BILLIONS off of it) is eeeeeeevil.
We get it.

The Democrats will save us.
The Democrats will protect us.
When I think strength and security- I think Democrat.

Anonymous said...

'Where it says "Imam" read "Rabbi."'

Can't. "Imam" does not appear in the oath.

Dr X said...

I have no problem with people reporting suspicious behavior, but oaths are good for children if and when those oaths espouse high ideals. Among adults, oaths appeal to the immature who need encouragement to behave well. That's fine; animals need bars on their cages.

When the focus of an oath moves from idealism to suspicion it ceases to function like the bars on a cage and, instead, stokes the most base of impulses. Oaths come in pretty handy for authoritarian regimes, as well.

If you need oaths you will bristle at people like blue girl who bristle at oaths of suspicion. Cages, like oaths, calm wild animals. Remove the bars and the animals go crazy. On the other hand, beings that don't need cages find them silly, superfluous and problematic to living a full life.

Dogface Doe, the Infantry schmo said...

Wow, so we should compare it to Nazi activity on Krisstalnacht?

Funny, I dont remember Jews flying suicide planes into German Buildings, maybe you could link us all to that facet in History?

Is it crazy to report something suspicious which could save possibly hundreds of Lives?

Much better to call her a Filipino bitch, eh? satisfying was it?

Correct me if I'm wrong Blue girl, you were in Iraq when?

The only Hrridan here seems to be your ilk

Toodles Hon....

Anonymous said...

Exactly, Dr. X, and being a doctor, I'm sure you felt your taking of the hippocratic oath was just a silly little kid's game to cage your freedom. Fuck 'em, right?

Or like when they make you take an oath to tell the truth when giving sworn testimony in a court of law, who do they think they are?! If you haven't committed perjury, you're just not living a full life.

Or like when the President swears the Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, can you believe that shit? What is he, like, twelve?

Oaths are badges of honor. Those who find them silly and superfluous are only describing to the world their own character flaws. Believing that nothing is sacred, that nothing is worth taking an oath for is the coward's creed.

the dryyyyyyy cracker said...

I'm actually not too crazy about getting columnists pulled--the right to free speech not being subject to majority whim or squeaky-wheel syndrome--but let's not get hung up on the finer points. Let's talk instead about this chickenhawk infestation you've got on your hands.

Looky here, tough-talkin' commenters, we know y'all don't have the nads to actually fight, but could you invertebrates please go a step further and keep your delusions of usefulness to yourselves? I live near actual, viable targets of terrorism, and the last thing we need around here are a bunch of Junior GWOT Deputies making a mess for the grown-ups to deal with.

See, here's the thing: If you take Malkin's oath seriously, that makes you very, very stupid. Very, very stupid people cannot be trusted to spy on their neighbors, as their conclusions will most likely be very, very stupid conclusions.

Hellfireblogs said...

If Malkin was born in Philly and grew up in Jersey, why are you calling her an immigrant? I'll assume you're White, and all non-Whites are "immigrants" to you.

It's funny how your rant against supposed bigotry (I guess the enlightened thing to do is keep silent when you see what could be a dangerous situation) includes an exposure of your own White supremacist veiws on just who is and isn't an American

Anonymous said...

dryyyyy cracker, the tragedy of it all is that good men have died for your right to hold and voice your opinions, yet you don't have the common decency to honor their sacrifice by educating yourself above the level of a semi-retarded fifth grader.

dryyyyy cracker school of logic Rule #1: If I repeat very it makes my argument appear stronger. I will repeat it repeatedly.

Edger said...

T, it must be hard for the malkinoids to type with spittle all over their monitors and keyboards. Heh.

But I suppose it's easier and less painful than trying to think.

Some abilities just can't be faked. You know? ;-)

Dr X said...

Anonymous said:

Exactly, Dr. X, and being a doctor, I'm sure you felt your taking of the hippocratic oath was just a silly little kid's game to cage your freedom. Fuck 'em, right?

I'm a clinical psychologist. We don't take an oath. I maintain the highest integrity in my work without an oath. We have an ethics code to clarify more complex matters for the ethically addled which also forms the basis for disciplinary action for misconduct. The code isn't an oath. My state requires adherence to the code as a legal matter, but I don't need it to behave myself.

You seem to think that without an oath physicians would just say 'fuck em.' That's my point about oaths. They are for people whose internal moral lives are insufficient -- like a child's.

Or like when they make you take an oath to tell the truth when giving sworn testimony in a court of law, who do they think they are?! If you haven't committed perjury, you're just not living a full life.

I don't need to swear an oath to stop myself from lying, though the less civilized among us seem to need these things to keep their bad behavior in check. What is it about that you don't understand? I also believe that an oath that pledges to uphold ideals can be helpful to children and people who need it because of insufficient moral depth. Oaths to maintain suspicion rather than higher ideals are primitive and emotionally regressive. You shouldn't swear to be emotionally backwards, suspicious and primitive. It comes all too naturally to people.

Or like when the President swears the Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, can you believe that shit? What is he, like, twelve?

No, not generally, but he's got a lot of 'adults' watching who are the moral equivalents of twelve-year-olds, so this assures them that we are not going to get out of collective control.

Christ also explained that when he raised Lazarus from the dead he made a showy exhibit of asking God to raise him because people believe in showy hocus pocus. Perhaps he explained himself so that the more spiritually advanced wouldn't look at him and ask wtf are you doing all that for?

Oaths are badges of honor. Those who find them silly and superfluous are only describing to the world their own character flaws. Believing that nothing is sacred, that nothing is worth taking an oath for is the coward's creed.

No, oaths are not badges of honor and I believe that God, the truth and creation are sacred. Oaths aren't awards for doing something; they're promises to do something or refrain from doing something. There is no honor in a promise itself. The honor is in the fulfillment of the promise. Moreover, one can do good without making the promise to do it out loud in an oath. One quiet good act or sacred commitment kept is far more sacred than a million broken promises.

Paraphrasing something I recently heard about moral showiness (sorry, I can't recall who said it but I'd appreciate it if anyone can give a citation), the moral lives of people who really need oaths are like the boasts poorly endowed men. A lot of talk compensates for the fact that there is very little underneath.

Sloan said...

Okay BlueGirl, I'll play your little game and make the word substitutions you suggest:

"Dear {Jewish} Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist"...

...nah, sorry. You've lost me already.

It seems obvious to me that, if we did things your way, we would all be less safe. This post is just further proof of how the Left has come completely unhinged in their hatred of conservatives. My God, you're not even making a PRETENSE of rational thought anymore.

Anonymous said...

Liberals are showing their true colors...racist!

Anonymous said...

"It seems obvious to me that, if we did things your way, we would all be less safe."


The shrill cry of the paranoid and those that wet their pants at first site of dark clouds on the horizon. And they are amazingly willing to sacrifice up other peoples' rights and freedoms but are hardly forthcoming in giving up their own.

Let's paly this game then.

We would all be safer if...

...we had much much stronger gun-control laws.

...we made smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol illegal.

...we restricted driving to only those that insurance companies actuarial tables say are leastlikely to have an accident.

...only licensed professionals were allowed to make home repairs.

...high heels, skate boards, cosmetic surgery, and banana peels are all outlawed.

...sex and child birth are banned as well.


Did I leave anything out? Maybe risk-taking of any kind should require a government permit of some kind?


--sean of li

Apollo 13 said...

Malkin is crazy. When the Virginian-Pilot out of Norfolk dropped her column, their public editor explained that their "readers often took issue with her [Malkin's] seemingly mean-spirited rantings and suggested that she be dropped."

Another Virginian-Pilot columnist wrote...

"I think [Malkin] habitually mistakes shrill for thought-provoking and substitutes screaming for discussion. She's an Asian Ann Coulter. I also think that, like Coulter, she says outrageous things just to get TV appearances and book deals. She's the worst of what's wrong with punditry today. She adds absolutely nothing to genuine political discourse."

That's exactly right. She's a wingnut, a Bushwacko, and she attracts like-minded wingnut shrews and screws.

Chicago, IL said...

Can left wing blogs make posts or statements without strings of profanity? From what I've seen, it certainly doesn't appear so.

Lester More said...

How is this blog author less mean spirited or less shrill that what she accuses Ms. Malkin of doing? Why the racism or need to identify her as an "asian" Anne Coulter in the comments. Can the author actually stick to the issues and discuss them without attacking the person? Not evident from her posts nor can her fan club readers. How does this provide credibility for the author's point of view? Is the author and all of the readers 15 years old and I missed it in the about me section?