This Week In Crazy: #Benghazi Caused The ‘Charlie Hebdo’ Attack, And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right
Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:
5. Curt Schilling
On Tuesday, the Baseball Hall of Fame announced its four-member class of 2014: Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Craig Biggio. Former Red Sox star Curt Schilling received 39.2 percent of the vote from the Baseball Writers Association of America, leaving him well short of the 75 percent threshold for induction. And he thinks that he knows why:
“I think he got in because of [Greg] Maddux and [Tom] Glavine. I think the fact that they won 14 straight pennants. I think his ‘Swiss army knife versatility,’ which somebody said yesterday, I think he got a lot of accolades for that, I think he got a lot of recognition for that. He’s a Hall of Famer,” Schilling said of Smoltz, while comparing their cases during a Wednesday interview. “And I think the other big thing is that I think he’s a Democrat and so I know that, as a Republican, that there’s some people that really don’t like that.”
That’s right: The liberal sports media is blackballing Schilling from the Hall because he’s a Republican!
Unfortunately for Schilling, his case is pretty thin. For one, his statistical case for enshrinement is pretty borderline. Furthermore, if Major League Baseball has any political leanings, they are decidedly conservative. And contrary to Schilling’s accusations, Smoltz is actually an outspoken Republican who has donated thousands of dollars to the GOP and campaigned for far-right candidates such as Ralph Reed and Karen Handel.
But that’s not to say that Schilling’s political leanings couldn’t hurt his Hall of Fame case. For example, following his high-handed opposition to government bailouts with a plea for a government bailout for his own failing company couldn’t have thrilled Hall of Fame voters who are tasked with evaluating candidates based on their “integrity” and “character.”
4. Ted Yoho
On Tuesday, the right flank of the GOP House majority attempted to overthrow Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and replace him with a more conservative leader. Despite the best efforts of Tea Party heroes like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, the effort failed; Boehner won re-election, and swiftly moved to punish the dissidents.
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) was one of the rebels; he voted for himself as the new Speaker. And as he explained to WorldNetDaily’s Radio America on Wednesday, there’s a word for the consequences of democratic elections: Communism!
“We’ve grown up in a country that honors free speech. If I can’t speak what’s on my mind, if I can’t do what the people of my district sent me up here [to do] and have that voice of dissension without fear of retribution, I’m not in a free country,” the large-animal veterinarian turned congressman explained. “That would be something you would expect in China, Cuba or any other communist country.”
Right Wing Watch has the audio:
Thankfully, Yoho probably doesn’t have to fear Boehner’s Stalinist crackdown. After all, he only managed to secure two votes on Tuesday afternoon.
3. Phyllis Schlafly
Like many Americans, Tea Party matriarch Phyllis Schlafly is concerned about the huge number of sexual assaults that take place on college campuses. But thankfully, Schlafly has a solution: Stop women from going to college.
“Long ago when I went to college, campuses were about 70 percent male, and until 1970 it was still nearly 60 percent. Today, however, the male percentage has fallen to the low 40s on most campuses,” Schlafly wrote in her latest column for WorldNetDaily.
Naturally, according to Schalfly, this shift has caused college men to completely abandon ethics and adherence to the law.
“Boys are more likely than girls to look at the cost-benefit tradeoff of going to college,” Schlafly explains. “The imbalance of far more women than men at colleges has been a factor in the various sex scandals that have made news in the last couple of years.”
“So, what’s the solution?” she continues. “One solution might be to impose the duty on admissions officers to arbitrarily admit only half women and half men. Another solution might be to stop granting college loans, thereby forcing students to take jobs to pay for their tuition and eliminate time for parties, perhaps even wiping out time for fraternities and sororities.”
Yes, Schlafly’s solution to stop assault in colleges is to limit the amount of women and poor people who can attend. Amazingly, this qualifies as a moderate opinion for her.
2. Bill Donohue
In a statement on Wednesday, Donohue defended the terrorists who murdered a dozen people in cold blood. After all, the victims were pretty much asking for it.
Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.
While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.
Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, ‘Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.’ Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.
That’s right: Maybe if Staphane Charbonnier hadn’t been such a narcissist, terrorists wouldn’t have stormed into his office and killed him without remorse.
In fairness to Donahue, he did try to straddle both sides of the fence, saying, “Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned.” But the overall message of his statement is impossible to miss.
1. Rush Limbaugh
But when it comes to Charlie Hebdo-related stupidity, nobody tops this week’s “winner,” Rush Limbaugh.
Limbaugh didn’t go as far as Donohue and blame the victims for the attack. Instead, he picked a much more familiar target: President Obama.
According to Limbaugh, the massacre never would have taken place if Obama hadn’t lied about Benghazi.
“By going to the UN and saying a video was responsible for the death of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans when it wasn’t. By sending Susan Rice on five Sunday morning talk shows to spread that lie, to run ads in Afghanistan or Pakistan starring Obama and Hillary, continuing this lie — these actions have consequences, ladies and gentlemen,” Limbaugh said.
“But we have a false narrative here, as it’s now called in the drive-by media,” he continued. “We got a false narrative ever since Benghazi happened. And my point is this country’s leadership has fed the beast. This country’s leadership has fed the rage. And not just this country — all of western civilization, which is cowering in fear. All the civilized world afraid to deal with this for what it is. All the western thinking closing Gitmo will solve it, getting out of Afghanistan will solve it. All we’re doing is trumpeting our weakness.”
It’s all fun and games until the House Oversight Committee starts investigating it.
Check out previous editions of This Week In Crazy here. Think we missed something? Let us know in the comments!
Get This Week In Crazy delivered to your inbox every Friday, by signing up for our daily email newsletter.