WABE host Denis O’Hayer pressed Johnson to clarify his remarks.
“When you say ‘rise up like Baltimore,’ – let’s define that a little bit more,” O’Hayer said. “In terms of the protests or in terms of the violence?”
“No, I’m saying in terms of the violence, and it’s unfortunate,” Johnson replied.
“You’re saying budgets like this can lead to violence?” O’Hayer asked.
“Yes, I am,” said Johnson.
I wish O’Hayer had pressed for a definition of ‘have-nots’, ya know, just for the record. Of course, we already know what it means when it comes from the mouth of socialist puppet monkeys like Johnson; it means those who are entitled to everything their hearts desire or feeble minds can imagine – but only have what they actually earned – which is nothing.
The violence he predicts is the reaction of people who were raised believing the world and everything in it is their personal property and they are denied access to their property by ‘the man’ and naturally their only recourse for reclaiming everything that was stolen from them by the man is violence.
If you imagine everything you own being taken away by some authoritative entities, denied ownership of your own property with no legal or social recourse, then yes, you too would either fight or tender resignation from the club of free men.
The difference here is that the people being defended by Mr. Johnson never earned nor owned the properties they perceive as having been taken. The injustices they riot against exist only in their entitlement-corrupted minds – save one. That one injustice against the poor down-trodden have-nots is that they have been raised and lived their lives thinking the world is theirs for the taking. That injustice was perpetrated by the same socialists that now incite them to riot via puppet monkeys like Johnson.
Fortunately, the author of this linked article reminds us of the caliber of thought that is produced by Johnson’s feeble mind when allowed to think and speak sans script:Island tipping.
Two Baltimore correctional officers were caught on video looting a 7-Eleven with the rest of the mob during the riots last month that gripped the attention of the nation.
It’s a development that blows apart the defense put forth by President Obama and other Democrats that the poor riot because they lack job opportunities.
The largest university press in the world has warned its authors not to mention pigs or pork in their books to avoid offending Muslims and Jews.
And Jews? When’s the last time you heard of Jews going on a rampage because someone ‘mentioned’ pigs or pork? Not since never. But muslims will go on a rampage over that. Muslims will go on a rampage for not having been given an excuse to go on a rampage.
By including Jews in the list of people they don’t want to offend by mentioning pigs Oxford University Press has admitted their cowardly dhimmitude.
Not only are they slobberingly terrified of the wrath of offended muslims they don’t even have the balls to be good little dhimmis.
Islam rests on one — and only one – premise: that God talked to Muhammad. This was a claim that Muhammad and only Muhammad made. As far as religions go, it is the flimsiest of premises and can be easily critiqued because of the evidence his experiences were derived from a powerful neurological disorder.
Further discrediting his claim Is his unending violence toward people who refused to believe him and join his religion and the hate-filled verses of his Koran that oblige his followers to fight and kill or subjugate the “enemies of God,” meaning his enemies. He especially hated people who mocked and criticized him and sent assassins to deal with them.
To many, cartoons and caricatures seem an overly robust way of expressing criticism of Islam. But it appears that we hearken to no other kind. Since 9/11, there have been hundreds of books, thousands of articles, and thousands more news reports all attesting to the existence of a violent component in Islamic ideology. Yet a significant proportion of our citizenry (not to mention numerous Church authorities) still cling to the illusion that Islam is a religion of peace. When no one pays attention to the quiet criticism, it may be time to take out the artist’s brush and the cartoonist’s pen.
The point of the Muhammad art exhibit was not to rile up Muslims, but to wake up non-Muslims who pay no attention to the everyday evidence that something is seriously amiss in the Muslim world. Seeing that Muslims have rioted over far less, it was plonkingly predictable that there would be an overreaction on the part of some Muslims. But that’s the problem. Western citizens only respond now when the Muslim reaction is of a spectacular nature. They ignore the slow and steady erosion of our freedoms that occurs when the wish to be inoffensive becomes paramount. And the Garland incident will undoubtedly be used as an excuse to erode a little more …
In Saudi Arabia, Bibles and rosaries are considered provocative and no churches are allowed. In some Muslim countries, ringing church bells is considered provocative. In other places it is provocative to rebuild a church that is falling down—so provocative that Christians have lost their lives for the offense. In still other Muslim areas it is considered provocative if a Christian won’t pay the jizya tax, and he can be killed in consequence. In some parts of the Muslim world, simply being a Christian is sufficient provocation for murder.
A large part of the “provocative intent” of the Garland exhibit is to prevent such things from ever happening here. It’s a reminder that the sharia ban on blasphemy is meant to apply not just in Iran and Arabia, but everywhere. Everyone is expected to submit. The event and its aftermath also serves to remind us that it’s not a good idea to let the most violent among us determine the limits of free speech. If the Muhammad Art Exhibit is dismissed as incendiary and needlessly provocative, it means that Muslim extremists get to call the shots about what is and is not a permissible form of expression in America. Today it will be Muhammad cartoons that offend. And tomorrow? Well, it could be anything, because Muslim radicals seem to have an unlimited capacity for being offended.
Perhaps you don’t give a damn about muslims buthering non-muslims, muslims, women, gays and practically any other type, class, race or religiously associated human being.
You like dogs? Of course you do. Everybody likes dogs … well, except …
~~ via David Britain on Twitter
Why aren’t liberals offering Pamela Geller a federal subsidy?
In 1986, the National Endowment of Arts paid about $20,000 for Andreas Serrano’s Piss Christ. Serrano peed in a glass, plunked a plastic icon of Jesus on the cross into it and then snapped a picture. In 1989, the Corcoran Gallery of Art agreed to host a Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit. Mapplethorpe’s work was edgy, particularly going by the attitudes at the time. There were the obligatory sexual bondage scenes, urine-drinking (artistic urine: is there anything it can’t do?) and his most famous work: a self-portrait showing a bullwhip going someplace the sun reportedly does not shine.
If Geller wanted an NEA grant to dunk Muhammad in beautifully illuminated urine, I would disagree quite strongly.
But that’s not what she’s doing.
“We can only conclude that he’s being duplicitous, or really, really thick.”
No reason he can’t be both.