Oh, the hypocrisy!

Yesterday, I wrote about a Washington Post editorial cartoonist frothing, untalented hack who thought it was amusing to draw the little, innocent daughters of Texas’ first Hispanic senator as monkeys. I also explored Twitter a bit to see what kind of reactions the drawing, which was yanked by the Washington Post without an apology or so much as an acknowledgment of the racism shitbaggery contained therein, was getting.

The reactions from the left were predictable.

You mean like this? ObamaFamily-1 Yeah, I can certainly see how using your family in a political ad makes little children fair game. I mean, those evil politicians! If they stick their kids out there as props, they certainly deserve to be portrayed as organ grinder’s monkeys, right?

Would everyone be overreacting if a cartoonist drew that?

What no?

You don’t think so?

Then shut the fuck up, Sparky.

I asked another leftist sow if she thought the “Planet of the Apes” quip Univision talk show host was funny after she opined about how amusing the cartoon was and how Ted Cruz was threatening Telnaes in retaliation (utter lie).


Her response – as expected – was completely incoherent.

First, she claimed it was “criminal of U.” I think she may have been drinking at the time.

Then, she garbled something about fashion criticism, which made me think she was smoking a blunt about the size of one of her elephantine legs.


And then, she passed full retard at top speed and ran right into full turnip with this:


All this in an effort to defend the indefensible – a racist attack on a couple of tiny little kids. And by the way, this creature apparently has a PhD in English.

I don’t have a PhD in English, but if I’m getting this straight, she thought Figueroa’s comment about FLOTUS was criminal. But it was OK, because it was fashion criticism, and therefore expected to be “simplistic,” but still criminal… or something… And it’s not like the First Lady could do anything about it anyway, because she’s “the one with power,” or something…

Go home, Anna. You’re drunk. (And given the fact that you’re Russian, born in Moscow, according to your IMDB profile, is it any wonder? How’s it feel to be stereotyped, you sow?)

And speaking of drunk, the froth-flecked, barely coherent Gawker decided to rear its tiny dick out of the swamp of irrelevancy and wade into the “controversy” with this “astute” observation. (And by “astute,” I mean “window-licking, helmet-wearing, cross-eyed, drooling moronic.”)

Ted Cruz jumping all over an ultimately harmless political cartoon in the hopes of dominating a meaningless one-day news cycle is nothing if not entirely predictable, but—but!—Ted Cruz has spoken about the sanctity of political cartoons before, and wouldn’t you believe that he struck a different chord?

Back in January of this year, politicians across the partisan and global spectrum used the Charlie Hebdo attacks as a way of asserting themselves as anti-terror chest-thumpers and, often, newfound free speech advocates. Among those was Ted Cruz, who, as ex-Medium cartoonist Matt Bors points out, defended political cartoons as a vital part of democratic society.

Survey says: DOUCHE!

Newsflash! you can defend free speech and expression and still criticize a cartoonist for having the bad taste to attack innocent children without hypocrisy involved.

Calling an indecent act indecent is in no way equivalent to censoring it, or threatening the paper, for that matter.

There’s a difference between having the right to do something, which Ted Cruz defended after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and being a dick by depicting someone’s kids as monkeys, which Cruz condemned, but in no way threatened the said dick’s right to draw.

Then there was this genius, who did so many mental acrobatics and contortions to try and defend Telnaes, that it made my eyes cross! Apparently, it’s OK to attack little children if they’re TALKING.


I was blocked by this coward after this exchange. I know… here’s my shocked face.

To be fair, there were quite a few what appear to be leftists, who also condemned the cartoon as disgusting and racist, and I’m glad. Innocent kids should never be the target of bullying adults who are looking for political points!

And speaking of using kids as political props…

Nuff said.

Nuff said.


19 responses

  1. Hypocrisy, double-standards, duplicity – Words not found in the leftist lexicon.


  2. This is the same pizda, BTW, who during the last Gaza war made a cartoon of Netanyahu using a baby as a punching bag.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Wow. She’s a cunt.


  3. Newsflash! you can defend free speech and expression and still criticize out a cartoonist for having the bad taste to attack innocent children without hypocrisy involved.

    Criticizing what the cartoonist said/drew is also free speech. That’s how it works. He says/draws something odious. He’s allowed. And we say that it’s odious. That’s also allowed. Observers can decide which side they support. Free speech in action.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Well, what did you expect? You rub their noses in their hypocrisy and YOU are the one who is wrong, SO wrong!

    But these self-centered Cyclops clones do not have the sensibility to even vaguely understand just how low they sink when they do these things, nor do they want to understand it. It’s all about free speech.

    They don’t get that part about fair play. You attack me or my kids, and I will attack you right back. And they don’t want to get that. It interferes with their self-perception that they are up on some kind of cloud above it all, while the rest of us are down here, rolling around in the mud… except that the mud is what they themselves are rolling in, and we’re wondering what is wrong with them?

    Pray, continue to go after them. They are the reason I avoid social media unless I’m forced to go there practically at gunpoint.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I am so often astounded at the sheer audacity of leftist loyalists who are amazed when those on the right find their polluted attacks offensive. Almost as if we are somehow the ones to blame for being thin skinned.
    Notice how I am trying to keep things civil, in honor of the holiday season. What I really mean to say is.
    Those two-faced assholes on the left think that they can just spew their shit at anyone on the right with no back splash. And then when the right so much as thinks to call them on it, they take their whiny asses all over social media crying foul.
    Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays if you prefer.

    Honestly, sometimes it feels good to just let go and rant. I really am astounded by the left, though. It must hurt to be that hypocritical.


  6. Double standards as usual… Nothing to see… Move along… We’re walking, we’re walking… Sigh




  8. Putin has the correct idea. He had a laser cartoon of Obama as a monkey eating a banana (hint, hint) played against the US embassy in Moscow. I suggest you look at it on You Tube, And tell your friends.

    Leftists are such hipocrits.


  9. RE: The Rank Hypocristy

    It’s because they’re Godless and therefore, lawless. They make things up as they go along. And anything and everything is subject to immediate change at their very whim. As they have no basic set of rules. Indeed, murder, as they’ve called for against Trump, is perfectly acceptable to them.

    Where there is Godlessness, hypocrisy becomes good taste.


    1. Do as I’m an atheist, I guess I wrote this just because… Got it.


    2. TO: Nicki
      RE: Atheists & the Hypocrites

      Even though they don’t recognize Him, some atheists at least observe God’s Laws.

      As it is written….

      For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. — Romans 2:14-15

      After all, I suspect the only Law you don’t observe is recognition of God Himself. All the other Laws as expressed in the Ten Commandments, you observe. Is that correct?

      As for the ‘hypocrites’ you wrote about….they have NO Law. And I do believe I was addressing the hypocrites.

      So, just because you claim to be—and likely are—an atheist, doesn’t make you a hypocrite. It’s a matter of ‘set theory’. Hypocrites are Lawless. Atheists are not necessarily such.

      Hope that helps…..

      Merry Christmas. And may He bless you with increased wisdom….. 😉

      God is alive….and Airborne-Ranger qualified. — Chaplain, US Army Airborne School Chapel, Benning School for Boys, a.k.a. The Infantry School, 1971, as I was going through the Basic Airborne Course


  10. You are forgetting Obama’s use of “Pajama Boy” as a political prop. I know he’s not really a chronological child, but surely he has some mental handicap that renders him a child in pretty much every other way.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I’m not certain why no one seems to have picked up on the obvious riposte. Crudely paste Barack Hussein Obama’s face over the appropriate part of that cartoon and then recaption it: “Funny now?”

    Liked by 1 person

  12. “If I had a son he’d look like Travon..”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Don’t you dare say ” If I had a son, he’d look like Bonzo the Chimp.” That would be politically incorrect, and probably cause for a visit from the Lynchpin. Just sayin’

      Liked by 1 person

%d bloggers like this: