14 September 2009 – Charles Johnson Claims The Tea Party Are Pro-Union Anti-Capitalist Communists Because Of An Image Of A Fist On A Poster. REALLY.Posted: September 15, 2014
Only behind the fevered forehead of Charles Johnson (nestled in the damp darkness somewhere between his blank black bead-button eyes and his Magical Jazzy Ponytail scrunchie) could this photo be construed as a Pro Nazi Rally, but that’s precisely what he claimed while trying to smear Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit. What exactly is Hoft guilty of? Pulling a Breitbart.
Okay. So radical grampas and grammas and mommies and daddies are neonazis for wanting to prevent the IRS from becoming a US version of Germany’s SS. Got it. So what was Hoft’s “Monumental Fail” that Mr.#Rumpswab refers to? An honest clarification of obvious intent, caught by a Wonkette reader. Original version:
Hunh. That’s a “Monumental Fail” according to someone who is notorious for editing and deleting his own words and those of other years after they were posted on LGF, who claimed he had nothing to do with nicknaming Rachel Corrie “St. Pancake”, who couldn’t identify the State Flags of either Tennessee or Ohio, who can’t tell the difference between a menu board and a laptop, who lied about Brevik’s Manifesto, who honestly claimed Anthony Weiner’s PeniePix as his own, who claimed George Zimmerman wasn’t injured by Trayvon Martin, who supports planting racist comments on rival blogs, who doesn’t know the definition of the word “bogus” or how to pronounce the word “milieu” and who’s been reduced to licking the fetid rump-pus-infections of a blogger known as Wonkette for liberal street cred.
Chuck, you’re a mess.
Update: The inane attack on Hoft continues. Here’s the pertinent part of the DSCC Request For Donations:
The unspoken insinuation is undeniably clear:
The Tea Party is a radical group comprised of neo-nazis.
Jim Hoft’s offer of a reward was poorly worded, but his intent was also undeniably clear:
Prove that the Tea Party supports National Socialism or STFU.
[Update: Added “St. Pancake” to the list of lies, h/t Swamprat.]
Charles Johnson loves to make unsubstantiated claims. He accuses the Tea Party of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights act.
Chuck uses no data or polls to make this ridiculous charge. Another idiotic aspect of this accusation, the Tea Party didn’t exist back in 1964! Charles Johnson should be careful with accusations of bigotry. His blog is full of racism and bigotry. Clean up your own blog Chuck before you go making accusations of racism.
Charles is one of the few people who believes Anthony Weiner. He is now accusing the Tea Party of setting Weiner up.
Charles continues carrying the water for Anthony Weiner. He will soon find some Ron Paul link and blame him for all this. The Sage of Culver City just keeps digging!
Catholic bashing Charles Johnson is now trying to reinvent himself. In less than 24 hours, he is now the Defender of the Catholic Church.Andrew Manuse, an obscure representative from New Hampshire wanted to strip the Catholic Church of non exempt status with taxes. Charles has made him out to be a Tea Party leader.
Charles somehow thinks one Representative Andrew Manuse represents the whole view of the Tea Party. Many Catholics are part of the tea Party movement. This is just an attempt by the Sage of Culver City to turn allies against each other.
Also, since when did Charles become concern for the Catholic Church? He’s one of the biggest haters of the church. Chuck regularly bashes the Pope and smears Catholics. Now all of a sudden, he’s concerned. The Jazz Man is so disingenuous, that it borders on madness.
It appears that the sage of Culver City, linked without thinking. The Rep accused of being Anti-Catholic and his take is totally different. Andrew Manuse claims he was aiming at one Bishop and his Church in particular. He was not aiming at the Catholic Church.
My comment, “I am now considering a bill to remove the Church’s tax exempt status in New Hampshire, for you have clearly shown that you no longer want it” was a reflection of the federal law and of the principle that a person in high religious authority should not be engaging in the political process. The fact that it was this Bishop using hypocritical terms, made the situation even more irritating. It is important to note that the word “considering” does not mean that I intend to file such legislation, and I have told no sources at the State House of any such intent. In fact, I acted alone with my comments and they in no way are related to the Tea Party or any other state representative. The comments, again, a reflection on the federal provision, would consider a similar state provision that gives churches the choice to pay property taxes and engage, or to not pay property taxes and to not engage. Considering the federal provision, the bill is worth discussing. This is certainly not an attack on the Catholic Church or any religion, for I am Christian myself. It is a question as to whether someone should have a pulpit where they can promote their agenda as they wish and then take that agenda to the State House and become a political activist. Is that right? I don’t know. I think it is worth considering. However, this entire false controversy has made me quite angry. I would think that good Catholic and Christian people would be angrier at what the Bishop did, both in breaking the law and being hypocritical, than they would be at the Majority Leader for an off-color remark that was accurate in its sentiment. I would ask the good people of this state to consider the facts, and then reconsider the smear job that is the article above.”
Charles, do you read the articles you link to?
The GOP is on track to win 60-65 seats, yet some on LGF cling to illusions.
The Tea Party was repudiated? If it wasn’t for the Tea Party the GOP would not have won the House.