Progressive fantasy: gang-rape Sarah Palin

Another wretched thoughtkriminal who deserves to be "hate-fucked."
Another wretched thoughtkriminal who deserves to be “hate-fucked.”


This was the rallying cry of a proud progressive rapper by the name of Azealia Banks. This barbarian had the following to say after reading a satirical article about Sarah Palin:

banksidiot2    banksidiot3    bansksidiot

The folks at the Media Research Center captured her Tweets prior to Ms. Banks realizing that she probable should’ve thought twice about letting her real opinions flow out her fingers. Ms. Banks comments are as glorious as Playboy’shate-fuck list they put out a few years back. Ms. Banks subsequently wrote an apology letter where she didn’t actually apologize and calls herself “extremely intelligent.” Ms. Banks’ apology letter is about as intelligent as her other rantings such as this gem in a Playboy interview:

‘I get annoyed with the fact that I’m even asked to explain myself. Why do I have to explain this to y’all?’ Banks asked. ‘My little white fans will be like, ‘Why do you want reparations for work you didn’t do?’ Well, you got handed down your grandfather’s estate and and you got to keep your grandmother’s diamonds and pearls and sh*t.’

A kind, caring, understanding, and glorious Party member!
A kind, caring, understanding, and glorious Party member!

If Banks is as intelligent as she claims to be how did she miss the “facts” feature on the Newslo article?


Looking at some of Banks’ other glorious comments:

abanks    abanks_1


abanks2    abanks3

The “War on Poverty“, Social Security, and Medicare hasn’t transferred enough wealth for her? I’m sure that Bernie’s National Socialism will take care of that when he becomes Chairman in 2016. I wonder if she’ll demand reparations from the descendants of black tribes who sold other Africans into slavery?


I didn’t realize that Banks had anything coherent or cohesive to say or “sing.” Is this trash considered to be art? I thought that saying “nigger” was abhorrent to progressives?


More fine commentary.

abanks7 abanks8

Since when have progressives believed in free speech?


I wonder why Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council had nothing to say? I suppose that it’s OK when progressives call for physical violence and rape against their political opponents. I also guess that Ms. Banks’ comments just didn’t fit Twitter’s list of unacceptable behavior. From Twitter’s Rules:


  • Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism. 
  • Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. Some of the factors that we may consider when evaluating abusive behavior include:


  • if a primary purpose of the reported account is to harass or send abusive messages to others;
  • if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats;
  • if the reported account is inciting others to harass another account; and
  • if the reported account is sending harassing messages to an account from multiple accounts.


  • Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories. 

As always, be sure to share this post with your progressive fiends friends.


2 thoughts on “Progressive fantasy: gang-rape Sarah Palin”

  1. There was a time when Americans believed in freedom.

    The US is dying from a million cuts. Part of the reason the USA is a nanny police state now is that whenever there is a problem, the kneejerk reaction in the US is to call for a new law.

    Nanny state laws are not the best solution, however. Nanny state laws lead to more laws, higher fines, and tougher sentences. Thirty years ago, DWI laws were enacted that led to DWI checkpoints and lower DWI levels. Seatbelt laws led to backseat seatbelt laws, childseat laws, and pet seatbelt laws. Car liability insurance laws led to health insurance laws and gun liability laws. Smoking laws that banned smoking in buildings led to laws against smoking in parks and then bans against smoking in entire cities. Sex offender registration laws led to sex offender restriction laws and violent offender registration laws.

    Nanny state laws don’t make us safer, either. Nanny state laws lead people to be careless since they don’t need to have personal responsibility anymore. People don’t need to be careful crossing the street now because drunk-driving has been outlawed and driving while using a cellphone is illegal. People don’t investigate companies or carry out due diligence because businesses must have business licenses now.

    The main point of nanny state laws is not safety. The main purposes of more laws are control and revenue generation for the state.

    Another reason laws are enacted is because corporations give donations to lawmakers to stifle competition or increase sales.

    Many laws are contradictory, too. Some laws say watering lawns is required, while other laws say watering lawns is illegal.

    Many nanny state laws that aim to solve a problem can be fixed by using existing laws. If assault is already illegal, why do we need a new law that outlaws hitting umpires?

    Nanny state laws are not even necessary. If everything was legal would you steal, murder, and use crack cocaine? Aren’t there other ways to solve problems besides calling the police? Couldn’t people educate or talk to people who bother them? Couldn’t people be sued for annoying behavior? Couldn’t people just move away? Even if assault was legal, wouldn’t attackers risk being killed or injured, too? Do people have consciences? Having no laws doesn’t mean actions have no consequences.

    If there is no victim, there is no crime.

    We don’t need thousands of laws when we only need 10.

    Freedom is not just a one way street. You can only have freedom for yourself if you allow others to have it.

    Should swimming pools be banned because they are dangerous? Hammers? Bottles? Rocks? Energy drinks? Pillows?

    Control freaks might get angry when a neighbor owns three indoor cats, but what did the neighbor take from them? Why should this be illegal? Is outlawing cats something a free country should do? Doesn’t banning everything sound like the opposite of freedom?

    Instead of getting mad at people who like freedom, why don’t people realize that freedom is a two way street?

    If you allow others to paint their house purple then you can, too.

    If you allow others to own a gun then you can, too.

    If you allow others to swear then you can, too.

    If you allow others to gamble then you can, too.

    Who wants to live in a prison?

    Think. Question everything.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. To a lot of people the only thing that matters is getting “free” stuff. Who needs freedom when you can get someone else’s money right?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s