Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019

It’s that non-denominational, post-Halloween, pre-New Years period again. How are you planning to celebrate the War on Christmas? 

Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the loony, bigoted, and hateful behavior of the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Raheem Kassam

It’s the week after Halloween, which means we’re already deep into the Winter Holiday season.

I call it the “Winter Holiday season,” and not the “Christmas season,” because I am — as you may have guessed — a foot soldier in the secular army, battling for the soul of the Western World.

Taking the “Christmas” out of Christmas is just one of the many ways me and my Baphomet-worshipping, Feminazi cohorts have worked to dismantle the cultural pylons that sustain this homogeneously white and Christian empire we call the West.

One of our latest and most insidious tactics to de-Christianize the late-autumn period has been to whitewash (or rather redwash) the yuletide imagery from those festive coffee cups Starbucks traditionally switches to every November to coincide with the explosion of aural misery you and your caroling kind call “Jingle Bell Rock.”

Unfortunately for us, Breitbart’s Raheem Kassam has spotted the gambit, and he isn’t having it. In a post entitled “War On Christmas: Starbucks Red Cups Are Emblematic Of The Christian Cultural Cleansing Of The West,” Kassam tracks the descent of these cups’ adorable design from that of a “Christmas-oriented product” to the massacre of Western mores we have before us today.

Over the last six years, Kassam writes, Starbucks has steadily removed the Christmas elements from the cups — scrubbing the Nativity-evoking stars and Christmas pine tree branches, and replacing them with snowmen and snowflakes — which, while not strictly speaking “Christian,” at least “resembles something mildly festive and Western.” And now this year we have before us a “monstrosity” — behold: A Bare. Red. Cup.

Starbucks Launches Exclusive Canadian Red Cup Pre-Order (CNW Group/Starbucks Coffee Canada)
Godless joe.

“The only thing that can redeem them from this whitewashing of Christmas is to print Bible verses on their cups next year,” Kassam writes.

“And no,” he contends, “I’m not ‘reading too much into it.'”

Via Breitbart

Next: National Religious Liberties Conference

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 8

16 responses to “This Week In Crazy: We Wish You A Joyous And Very Secular Late Autumn Period”

  1. dtgraham says:

    A lot of these things, like the other ‘this week in crazy’ stories, are because conservative Republicans don’t like what’s in the constitution. They claim to be madly in love with the constitution, but the problem is that don’t like a lot of what’s in it. They’d like to tweak it. From what I can see, after 4 years of reading the National Memo stories and poster’s comments, these are the changes to the bill of rights that Republicans appear to want:

    First Amendment:

    Congress shall make laws compelling the establishing of religion and demanding the exercise thereof; excluding Islam and Jesus’s social gospel notwithstanding.

    Second Amendment:

    A well regulated militia being gratuitous to the issue, the people shall be urged to bear as many arms as humanly possible to shoot the bejesus out of each other.

    Fourth Amendment:

    The right of the black and brown people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures in public, shall be violated for the public good, and no warrants shall need to be issued, but upon probable cause supported by mere sight alone.

    Eighth Amendment:

    Excessive bail shall be required to ensure that the accused are kept behind bars where they belong to suffer the cruel and unusual punishment that they deserve.

    Ninth Amendment:

    The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall be ignored if they conflict with conservative family values.

    Tenth Amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, shall be reserved for (i) the conservative dominated supreme court or (ii) the states, if the supreme court in (i) is not conservative enough; except that the states shall have the right to ban abortion and birth control, and outlaw homosexuality.

    Thirteenth Amendment:

    The United States shall re-establish involuntary servitude as the basis for the minimum wage.

    combining the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments into one:

    Establishes the right of denial of voting rights; based on race, colour, age, gender, non-payment of a poll tax, or a general suspicion of voting for the Democratic party.

  2. bobnstuff says:

    I think the Starbucks red cup is the best this week. You can’t us lift over Christmas cups in February but red ones can do for Valentines Day. I’m surprised they didn’t decide that Starbucks is communist.

    • charleo1 says:

      Starbucks, judging from the benefits, wages, and health insurance they provide their employees, must be some kind of Communists. Certainly not Capitalists!

      • bobnstuff says:

        I guess taking care of your employees may seem strange but it is a good business move, keep trained people instead of having to replace them every week. It’s cheaper in the long run.

        • charleo1 says:

          I agree it makes sense. But Starbucks continues to be an anomaly in the next quarter profit obsessed service industry. For years the fastest growing sector of our economy. Where wages are looked upon as the plague. To be avoided at all costs, as they cut into short term profits. And siphon off monies more effectively used in their estimation, to buy back stock, or to buyout competition, as to increase market share. Employees on the other hand are viewed as merely cogs in a giant piece of machinery to be phased out for the most part with automation, or contract outsourcing to even cheaper labor sources, asap. The next economic conundrum may be how do we as a society cope with the growing legions of idle poor?

    • stcroixcarp says:

      So now you want to take the St. out of St. Valentine’s Day too? I suppose the next attack will be on St. Patrick’s Day. Just plain green cups that can be used for spring and summer as well. No Shamrock Shakes at McDonald’s, no green beer. Will the war on Christians NEVER end?

  3. Patrick Jennings says:

    Breitbart, Michael Savage et al are businesses. Their target market is that small
    percentage of Americans who listen constantly to talk radio and watch Fox News.
    Bill O’Reily is the most watched personality on cable news. He gets about 3
    million viewers a night. That’s less than 1% of the population. Even if Rush Limbaugh’s
    unconfirmed claims of an audience of 20 million a week are correct (and I’m pretty
    sure they aren’t) that is still 6-7% of Americans at best.

    Every claim, catch phrase, headline and tweet these people create is designed to irritate, anger and shock the mainstream media and liberals. Then when people react with shock, anger and criticism these personalities go back to their base/audience and say, “see, I told you the liberal media hates people like us. Be afraid. Very
    afraid. Be angry. Very angry.”

    And it works for them. Especially from a profit perspective.

    This may not be true for right-wings foundations and non-profits. I am not sure that Tony Perkins is as calculating as the media personalities and outlets like Breitbart
    or Savage. For the conservative media every topic and headline is chosen for a
    specific purpose – maximize ratings and emotional turmoil.

    The anger,
    fear and victimization they sell to their followers is addictive ….. and

    The best way to handle these media outlets and personalities is to ignore them. Most
    Americans don’t follow politics or watch cable news. They know about the latest
    nonsense from Savage or Breitbart because of the coverage it gets – they are not
    part of the original audience.

    The national conversation is more focused on reaction to the dumbest politicians and media personalities than on actual issues and facts.

    Sites like Media Matters exist solely to repeat the worst things said by the right wing. Then they endeavor to debunk it. But the problem is they BEGIN BY REPEATING what the media personality just said. The nut job’s claim or accusation is now the focus
    on the conversation.

    This has to change.

  4. charleo1 says:

    The premise that, “America must choose between the Gay agenda, and, “religious freedom.” Is one I’m sure in which the Grand Ayatollah of Iran, Bin Laden, (if he were still alive.) Abu Omar al Shishani, (if he were still alive,) or proliferate executer, and head of The Islamic State of The Levant, (ISSL,) would wholeheartedly agree. Ditto on the separation clause in our own Constitution, they wouldn’t have considered including in theirs. And they are all doing so well over there in the Mid-East! Getting along, working out their differences, expanding their respective economies. And perhaps the best of all, no gun regulations! So all that secular, big government tyranny many Christians are feeling over here, doesn’t exist at all for them over there. When will you Atheists Liberals learn?

  5. One particular conservative once insisted that, if something is deemed offensive, it is our duty as Americans to say exactly that thing over and over again.

    Which is why, every day starting November 1st and ending on January 1st, I will be wishing him a “happy holidays.”

  6. Whatmeworry says:

    For or 400 years this country has celebrated Christmas until the liberal loons took offense. Pretty typical for a group with nothing better to do than whine

    • JPHALL says:

      Not all Americans celebrated Christmas during those 400 years. Jews, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims or Eastern Orthodox Christians for example. So your point is pointless.

  7. Louis Allen says:

    To the “journalist” author of this piece (of junk):
    Can you explain why it is, according to you, “…a
    fearful and unsubstantiated notion” the fact that, if the referendum passed, men
    could “pretend to be women” in order to use women’s restrooms.”??
    Can you explain why the statement from Hannity to the effect that “…it would have “forced” girls “to share bathrooms and showers with biological males who identify themselves as female.”is incorrect?
    Can you explain why you treat this matter as purely giving LGBTQs the “right” to choose which public (including schools) bathroom to use, while at the same time REMOVING my daughters’ rights to not have a biological male in their bathroom ??
    Can you explain why to you mindless liberal yidiots the rights of the majority can be trampled on, but not so with the “rights” of LGBTQs can not?
    Anybody? Anybody? Anybody ??

    • Sam Reisman says:

      Hi Louis,

      The “fearful and unsubstantiated notion” refers to rhetoric used by opponents of the bill — which suggested that transgender persons were all sexual predators.

      The fact is similar laws to the Houston ordinance have been on the books in states and major cities — including San Antonio ( ) — for years, without any increase in sexual assaults or rapes in women’s restrooms or reports of “men dressing up as women” ( ).

      I emphatically do NOT “treat this matter as *purely* giving LGBTQs the ‘right’ to choose which public (including schools) bathroom to use.” In fact the only people treating the bill “purely” in this fashion were its opponents, who successfully harnessed transphobia and “bathroom panic” to accomplish the death of an ordinance that would have provided protections for not only LGBTQ people.

      Far from being “purely” an LGBTQ issue, the ordinance would have ensured that nobody could be discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, age (people older than 40, to be precise), ethnicity, marital status, military status, pregnancy, or whether or not they were disabled.

      In fact, the only times the word “bathroom” appears anywhere in the ordinance is to make provisions for so that bathrooms are designed and built to be easier to access for people in wheelchairs.

      Far from being “purely” about bathrooms, the ordinance would have ensured protections in matters of employment, housing, and the awarding of city contracts.

      You can read it here:

      Thank you for reading.


  8. july860 says:

    That’s cuz in time, the bigots are gonna die out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.