“Conservatives Hate Biracials” MSNBC Loon Changes Her Online Name to Hide!

member_145989912

*

I made a race-baiting MSNBC loon change her online name. May I take a moment to issue a heartfelt Nelson “Haw-Haw?”

*

*

Thank you. That felt good.

Last week, MSNBC “social justice” reporter Gabriela Resto-Montero wrote a piece in which she claimed that there had been a “conservative backlash” last year against a biracial family that was featured in a Cheerios commercial. Ms. Resto-Montero’s post was soon re-edited by MSNBC to eliminate the false statement, but damned if it still didn’t show up in thumbnails, prompting many conservatives, like me, to take screenshots.

*

CheeriosFamily

*

Separately, a low-level race-baiting MSNBC loon sent out a tweet claiming that the “right wing” might not like the reemergence of the biracial family in a Super Bowl ad. The tweet was quickly redacted and the author fired, but the tweet wasn’t the problem. The problem was that Gabriela Resto-Montero fabricated the claim of a previous “conservative backlash.” The author of the tweet shouldn’t have been fired; the lying reporter should have been fired.

So I decided to pursue Ms. Resto-Montero for a comment. I contacted her through her MSNBC email, and via her very active Facebook page. I thought my question was straightforward and non-combative:

Dear Ms. Resto-Montero,

I’m writing to inquire about your recent MSNBC piece about the biracial family in the Super Bowl Cheerios ad. The thumbnail for the piece claims that the family’s first appearance “sparked a conservative backlash last year.” May I ask what proof you have that any political conservatives objected to the biracial family? Your bio on DNAinfo states, “Prior to DNAinfo, Gabriela worked as a fact checker for the Nation, where she learned to conduct meticulous research.”

Surely, then, you would not have stated that there was a “conservative backlash” regarding the Cheerios biracial family had there not actually been one, and surely you can produce at least a few pieces of evidence to back up that claim.

My thanks in advance for your time and assistance.

Thanks to Facebook allowing people to see when an email is read, I saw that she viewed my email. No response. Twice more I followed up on it. She read the follow-ups.

And then…

BANG! She’s no longer Gabriela Resto-Montero. She’s now Gabriela Noemi. She even changed her Facebook URL from “facebook.com/Gabriela.RestoMontero” to “facebook.com/gabriela.noemirm.” And immediately after making the change she blocked me.

We live in a world in which joy is not always abundant. A sentient human will learn to embrace even the smallest of victories and the tiniest of joys. And I made a race-baiting MSNBC loon change her online name by doing nothing more than asking her a simple, non-threatening question.

But there’s a slightly larger point beyond my self-indulgent schadenfreude. If the left really thinks that conservatives hate biracial families, if the left thinks that when conservatives gather together it’s to shake our fists in anger at Halle Berry, Vin Diesel, Jessica Alba, Ben Kingsley, Rob Schneider, and Dean Cain – if the left really thinks that this is what conservatives concern themselves with…good. You mischaracterize your opponents at your own risk, and always at your own peril.

In the Huffington Post, Cenk Uygur – whose notoriety comes from being a “star” of the 21st Century version of community access cable (i.e., a Youtube channel) – came to Resto-Moreno’s defense, agreeing that there was no evidence of a “conservative backlash” over the biracial Cheerios family, but claiming it was still appropriate to level the charge, because of an entirely different advertisement that some conservatives objected to involving a Muslim (note to Cenk – Islam is not a race). And thus, “Community Access Cenk” demonstrated why he can’t hack it outside a format that sandwiches him between teenage girls’ makeup tutorials and videos of farting cats. If you’re going to claim that there was a “conservative backlash” against the Cheerios family, you have to show that there was a “conservative backlash” against the Cheerios family. That’s called journalism.

For five years, I was an active participant in the secretive “Friends of Abe” organization of Hollywood conservatives. I have a book coming out in May that is not kind to some of my former colleagues. But out of a hundred negative things I can say about them, I can say this, with certainty, about all of them – they are not racist. The racism charge is pure nonsense. For five years, I organized events with black conservatives, biracial conservatives, black conservatives with biracial families, and white conservatives with biracial families. And I’m not going to say that discomfort over biracialism rarely came up. I’m going to say that it never came up. Not once. Never. Zero.

Whenever you hear about racist epithets being used against media personalities who are biracial, or in biracial families, it always comes from the left, whether it was the vicious attacks against Stacey Dash, Tamera Mowry, Clarence Thomas, or my former good friend Kira Davis.

The left enjoys slamming biracial couples and individuals, only to then falsely claim that those on the right are the bigoted ones. This detachment from reality does not bode well for leftists.

According to Google, I am the only human being ever called a “meta-ideologue” (L.A. Times, November 25, 2000). The term apparently means “an existentialist on a quest to understand how ideologues invent their realities.” My unique moniker from that most lefty of leftist papers suggests that I know a thing or two about ideology. And I can say without hesitation that when one side in an ideological conflict becomes completely detached from reality (I think the Latin term is “batshitus crazitas”), it has hobbled itself to its own detriment. So if the left wants to think that conservatives get rankled by the existence of biracial people, great. Keep it up. And, like Gabriela Noemi Resto-Montero, keep running – running from questions, running from facts, running from reality.

Here’s some genuine Latin: Stultum facit fortuna, quem vult perdere. “Whom Fortune wishes to destroy, she first makes stupid.” I welcome the left’s stupidity, as I wish the left’s destruction.

So stay stupid, my leftist friends.

*

[Postscript: For the record, I myself changed my name eighteen years ago, after a $25,000 bounty was put on my head, and I feared for the safety of my family. However, my predicament was brought about by my willingness to vigorously defend my controversial views, any and every time I was asked to do so, on national TV and in the print press. Unlike Ms. Resto-Montero-Noemi, a single missive would not have scared me away, because I never espouse views that I cannot defend]

*

Comments
11 Responses to ““Conservatives Hate Biracials” MSNBC Loon Changes Her Online Name to Hide!”
  1. OldManC says:

    “Stultum facit fortuna, quem vult perdere”

    I guess the gods really have been after my ex all these years.

  2. EricP says:

    Learned last night both Key & Peele are bi-racial (plus Key was adopted and raised by bi-racial parents … and got his Masters degree in the Penn State theatre department, but I Nittany-ly digress). Shrugged my shoulders and thought, “Color, schmolor. They’re both damn funny.”

  3. Josef Gideon Burg says:

    Mr. David Stein, Rudolf Graf Mattogno and Faurisson do never have at all duty to save a Palestinian,
    but “Jewish Holocaust Revisionist” has a duty to save a Palestinian.

    How do you save a Palestinian?

    Do you think that you could really compete with Gilad Atzmon Paul Eisen and Floriano Abrahamowicz?

    Do you not recognize Gilad Atzmon Paul Eisen Floriano Abrahamowicz and Palestine at all? 

    Do you not know Gilad Atzmon Paul Eisen Floriano Abrahamowicz and Palestine at all?

    There will Always be a Palestine.

    http://pauleisen.blogspot.jp/

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/

  4. pipercat says:

    As someone who seems to pride himself on being a stickler for accuracy I am appalled that you would describe Nelsons trademark tag line as haw-haw when it’s clear that it should be described as HAH-hah. As a result I now must call into question the truthfulness of everything you have ever written.

    • admin says:

      You can criticize my politics, you can criticize my historical views, you can criticize my diminutive size, and you can criticize my superfluous third nipple…but nobody, NOBODY criticizes my knowledge of “Simpsons” trivia and gets away with it! “Haw haw” is the official manner in which Nelson’s laugh is written. Yes, it sounds like “ha ha,” but the proper nomenclature is “haw haw.” Note, for example, the official title of the episode in which Bart and Nelson become best friends, “The Haw Hawed Couple” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905908/). I rest my case.

      • Some revisionist person says:

        I hope there is info about this superfluous third nipple in your book, lest I be forced to demand a refund.

      • Berkeley says:

        “…my superfluous third nipple…”

        Haven’t you had that thing removed yet? Or at least transplanted to where you won’t be walking on it?

  5. Irwin W Fletcher. says:

    Right now I’m watching CNN as they salivate over this “loud music” shooting trial. They keep presenting it as part two of the Zimmerman trial. In this case a white guy shot into an SUV playing loud music and killed someone, then sped off.
    Now because the justice system works, as it did in the Zimmerman trial, the white guy is likely going to be found guilty and go to jail. Why? Because the evidence shows that he was likely the one that decided to make the incident violent when it didn’t have to be and there is seemingly no evidence to support any claim to the contrary.

    In the Zimmerman trial the opposite was true. All the evidence pointed to Martin being the one who decided violence was the best way to solve a problem and there was no evidence to support any alternate theory. And in that case the tangible evidence was on the side of “not guilty” and the fantasy narrative was on the side of “guilty” so it was a pretty easy call. In fact the case only went to trial because several lies were told to the public in order to pressure the justice system to momentarily overlook it’s own burden of proof and appease a national lynch mob.

    This current trial has nothing to do with Zimmerman and the fact that CNN is allowing this comparison to be made is nauseating. I guess I shouldn’t expect much from a network that continues to employ Sunny Hostin as a legal analyst.

    If anyone is looking for a great “youtube” video idea I’ve got one for you. Get the CNN footage from the Zimmerman trial with Sunny’s expert legal punditry and give her the “Daily Show” treatment. She stood there cheerleading for the prosecution throughout the entire trial. Everything they did she thought was a spectacular success.
    As far as she was concerned the prosecution was trying a racist murderer and doing a fabulous job of it. She tried so hard to convince the viewers that everything was going great. The grand climax of her insight came after proceedings had ended and deliberation began when on national television she began raving about how the prosecution had won the closing argument battle because John Guy, or “McDreamy” as she put it, had the all female jury under his spell.
    What most rational people saw was the defense completely lambast the court with facts and truth while the prosecution, having just watch their entire case fall apart and the lies that brought this case to trial dissolve in front of them, had to rely completely on an emotional plea to find Zimmerman guilty just because it’s the right thing to do despite the reality of what happened.
    At that point everyone knew Martin wasn’t on the bottom and Martin wasn’t screaming for help. But Sunny saw nothing but sunshine for the prosecution even announcing to everyone that social media had exploded with women salivating over Mr Guy (although it sounded like she just hoped it might be true so long as she said it loud enough), and she claimed that the Jury was just sitting there staring into his dreamy eyes unable to think for themselves. She declared the prosecution the winner because John Guy was too handsome for the jury to disagree with. If you watch the segment it was even more pathetic then it sounds. It wouldn’t have been any more objectionable had she been holding pompoms and bouncing up and down.

    I could tell that her co-hosts were quite embarrassed by her silly rant and quickly tried to change the subject and pull the show out of the gutter it had fallen in to. I expected that she would perhaps be quietly let go shortly after when no one was looking. She’s African American, a woman, and a lawyer and had basically voided all those liberal qualifications in one fail swoop by showing that she’s racially biased, ignorant of the law, dishonest, and seems to think women are too weak-minded to properly judge the merits of a legal case in the presence of an attractive man. I figured they’d have to drop her from the show and rely solely on Don Lemon carry them through.
    Instead Hostin is back with a vengeance. In fact, not long ago CNN did a sort of “look back on the ZImmerman trial”, a piece which Hostin took part in. I was absolutely shocked to see her on my tv screen blathering on about how she was well aware of the mess the prosecution was making of the case and how it was totally botched by incompetence. Setting aside the fact that she was basically admitting to being dishonest in her initial legal analysis over the course of the trial it’s still so unbelievably annoying that she doesn’t hold out the slightest possibility that perhaps justice WAS served and perhaps the justice system, and the weak-kneed feeble-minded all-female jury perhaps DID get it right.

    I’d be curious to see just how much contradiction there is between her post trial analysis of the case in the CNN special and her live analysis during the trial. In the after show she was quite adamant that Shipping Bao’s testimony was a complete mess which of course she knew at the time. I don’t recall her having anything derogatory to say about it the day he testified.

    If anyone is looking for a good laugh then dig out that footage and grab a bowl of popcorn. It’s really a piece of liberal history that should be preserved for posterity.

    • Some revisionist person says:

      You don’t understand. The media needs a steady diet of Evil White Males, and if they can’t one, they fake one, such as with Zimmerman. Everyone knows the KKK is full of brown Latinos like George Zimmerman. Who are we to question CNN, MSNBC, and the ASSociated Press?

Leave A Comment

*