Marvel’s Dan Slott stretches his bigotry muscles, tells Christians to build companies in ‘Christ-land’

Members of the comic industry recently got a little testy when Chuck Dixon and Paul Rivoche went to the Wall Street Journal about a bias against conservative creators in the industry. Marvel’s Tom Brevoort quickly assured everyone that no “blacklist” exists at Marvel (Can you name one openly conservative writer who is employed there?), and then surmised that it wasn’t conservatives that editors have a problem with, but certain kinds of “behavior” **cough** that might translate into not getting employment.

Sure, no “blacklist” exists, as long as you don’t consider The Amazing Spider-Man writer telling Christians to move to “Christ-land” as evidence that maybe — just maybe — Marvel isn’t too friendly towards guys like Messrs. Dixon and and Rivoche.

Here is Dan Slott’s response to the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case.

Dan Slott Christians

Imagine if I found out that my local pool was going to have very specific “women-only” hours for Muslim women, who don’t want to be seen by men outside their immediate family. We’ll use Seattle as an example:

Seema is from Pakistan. Sahra is from Somalia. Both are Muslim. They say having a women-only swim program allows them to get some exercise while observing their religious customs. Seema says their religion requires them to cover in front of men. “We don’t cover our heads in front of our husbands, our dads, brothers,” she says. “But when we go outside we’re supposed to cover for woman’s modesty.”

What if I pulled a Dan Slott-like move, stretched my bigotry muscles, and told Muslim women: “This is America. Go find pools in ‘Muslim Land.'” I’m pretty sure my employer would fire me.

And then there’s this gem:

Dan Slott Hobby LobbyThe thing with Hobby Lobby and other small religious businesses is that they took their grievance to court — and won. They followed the rule of law and the highest court in the land agreed with them. That is not an “asshole” move, but yet Dan Slott likens Christians to “conquistadors” and “assholes.” It’s incredibly mean, but also cartoonish; it’s reminiscent of 1992’s Office Space, where the character Peter Gibbons says “You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.”

Speaking of the Jewish faith, it’s now well-known that Dan Slott is very protective of his ancestry (just don’t mention that his own characters get taken to task by Bleeding Cool for engaging in “Nazi-like experimentation”). How would the Marvel scribe react if someone went full-Dan Slott on Jewish people like he does on Christians and Americans who are strong advocates of the Second Amendment?

Here we see another example of Dan Slott’s intolerance:

Dan Slott guns

Hube over at Colossus of Rhodey made a good point shortly after the tweet went live: How would Dan Slott react to someone who tweeted him in a New York Jewish accent about money?

Dan Slott Amazing Spider Man

The tweet was deleted — down the Memory Hole — Dan Slott’s go-to move when he gets caught saying things that reflect poorly on his employer. It’s a good thing the Internet is forever.

If you are a fan of Marvel comics who just so happens to be a Christian, a Second Amendment advocate or simply someone who just doesn’t like seeing bigotry broadcasted via social media, you should probably think twice about buying products put out by Dan Slott. You might want to also consider contacting Marvel. It doesn’t have many standards these days, but there are a few that are hanging by a thread.

Dan Slott MarvelSlow clap for Dan Slott. He’s the guy you want to find when you want tweets infused with anti-Christian bigotry, or Marvel comics that are consistently trying to see how low the bar can go.

Update: Dan Slott continues to read this little old blog and attack it from afar because, as we all know, it’s much safer to allow Twitter groupies to massage your ego than to actually defend the indefensible.

Question for Dan Slott: If I just had a beef with a few Jews over a religious issue with political implications, and I told them to go to “Jew-land,” how would you respond? How would my employer respond? That’s right — you’d go ballistic. And then my employer would fire me. But you get to tell a bunch of Christians to go to “Christ-land” without consequences. Hypocrite.

Dan Slott Hobby Lobby tweetUpdate II: Marvel’s Tom Brevoort has weighed in. No response to the question “If Chuck Dixon told Dan Slott to go to ‘Jew-land’ over a religious gripe, would he still get work?” Telling.

Tom Brevoort MarvelMarvel Hobby LobbySomeone else brought up similar sentiments about Marvel’s creators over at the New Brevoort Formspring. It turns out that Mr. Brevoort really does embrace the the strange business model “needlessly alienate potential customers” to grow the company.

New Brevoort Formspring

Roberts inadvertently sows the seeds of revolutionary change

The Stamp Act of 1765. The Tea Act of 1773. Boring stuff, right? Except for what they represented to a bunch of rebel colonists fed up with oppressive taxation and a government increasingly divorced from the pulse of its people. After the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 things didn’t go too well for the oppressors.

Fast forward to June 28, 2012, where the Supreme Court has ruled the Obamacare mandate constitutional — as a tax. Correction: The mother of all taxes. Chief Justice John Roberts‘ logic? It’s better to be oppressed under a government with near-unlimited powers than one with unlimited powers:

Whether the mandate can be upheld under the Commerce Clause is a question about the scope of federal authority. Its answer depends on whether Congress can exercise what all acknowledge to be the novel course of directing individuals to purchase insurance. Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. […] Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.

[A]lthough the breadth of Congress’s power to taxis greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior. Once we recognize that Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear. Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the right to bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in other controversies, such as custody or immigration disputes.

By contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice (NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS, Opinion of the Court, 42-43).

Basically, what Roberts is saying is that allowing Congress to compel you to buy insurance “because we say so” would destroy the idea of a government of limited and enumerated powers. Allowing a government to compel you to do something through taxation “because we’re power-hungry, oppressive jerks” … apparently falls within the scope of the constitution. Barely.

The inside-the-Beltway crowd doesn’t read things quite the same way. As always, they’re too caught up with head games to understand what’s going on in the hearts of everyday Americans. Take Charles Krauthammer, a brilliant man who is technically right when he says:

“[Roberts upheld] the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.”

That might very well be true. Charles and Chief Justice John Roberts are intelligent individuals. But let this also be known — Chief Justice John Roberts helped sow the seeds of revolutionary change today. The American people have a history of not responding well to oppressive taxes. Just ask our British friends.

Obamacare has now been certified a tax of the highest, most oppressive order — a tax imposed upon you at birth because you exist. And so, the people who unleashed a big red wave in 2010 over federal spending and uncontrollable debts have now been told that Obamacare stands — as a tax — from their worst nightmares.

My prediction is that the Tea Party movement, already fed up with $17 trillion dollars of debt, high unemployment and a grim economic forecast, will use the anger generated from this decision and turn out another big red wave in the 2012 elections that will rival or surpass 2010. Then they will wait. They will expect the Republicans they elect to craft principled legislation to secure a brighter future for their kids and grandchildren. If it doesn’t happen, there won’t be much time to right the ship. You can only outrun the math for so long, as Greece, Italy and Spain have found out. It will then be up to good men to pick up the mantle of Paul Revere and William Dawes, or the nation will be lost.

Obama’s Supreme Court threats: playing with fire while doused in gasoline

In the wake of White House’s defense of Obamacare before the Supreme Court, it’s hard not to conclude that a scary percentage of Democrats are willing to tear the country apart if it serves their political purposes. I’m not predisposed to leveling such serious charges, but the president’s broadside on the Supreme Court, coupled with those by his surrogates on the airwaves, leaves me no choice. Politico reports:

President Barack Obama has joined a growing number of Democratic lawmakers, left-leaning commentators and progressive activists who are warning the Supreme Court on the health care law: Don’t you dare overturn it.

Obama made an unusual pre-emptive strike Monday that previews the Democratic strategy if the high court nixes all or major parts of his signature domestic achievement. His volley, coming less than a week after the oral arguments wrapped up and while the justices are still deliberating, injects a high-level dose of politics into the most anticipated ruling since the court settled the 2000 presidential race.

His message was simple: The Roberts Court is on trial.

“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said at a news conference. “Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.

First of all, he’s wrong. Conservatives have never complained about judges overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.” Conservatives are against judges making law through their rulings, or approving of laws that are unconstitutional. The job of the justice is to uphold the constitution, and striking down law that violates the constitution is not ideological. President Obama’s analysis of the situation is 180 degrees from reality.

This guy was a constitutional lawyer? How is that even possible? According to his logic, any law that is “duly passed” is constitutional. It’s nonsensical reasoning and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether or not the government can force you to engage in commerce so that they can then control it. An individual mandate is anathema to limited government, and for a sitting president to suggest that the highest court in the land would invalidate such a monstrosity for petty political purposes is disgusting and dangerous. Justice Kennedy stated that an individual mandate would fundamentally alter the relationship between the federal government and the citizenry, and he was right. But according to Barack Obama, such an observation resorts to judicial activism. Perhaps this is why:

[Obama] urged the court to consider the “human element,” saying that “people’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care.” Millions of young adults and senior citizens have already benefited from the law, and millions more will gain access to health insurance when it takes effect completely in 2014, Obama said.

Again, the president appeals to emotion, knowing full well that the “human element” he speaks of is irrelevant to the constitutionality of the individual mandate. If the government passed a law tomorrow that it could randomly confiscate the wealth of anyone it wanted, so that it could then turn around and give it to the homeless, there would still be a “human element,” there would still be millions of lives affected—and it would still be unconstitutional.

It is not unheard of for a Supreme Court justice to change his mind on a case after deliberation. This little stunt of Obama’s could backfire on him badly. His reckless rhetoric could change a 5-4 vote to 6-3. I’m still interested in seeing how Sotomayor votes, since she asked a few rather pointed questions that suggested that she would be open to siding against the mandate.

President Barack Obama and Democrats are playing with serious fire when they portray the court as nothing more than a bunch of political hacks with lifetime appointments. There are at least five of them who try and figure out what the original intent of the Founding Fathers is that’s embedded in the constitution. There are four others who tend to find that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”

Confused? Let Mark Levin explain:

Don’t be embarrassed if you don’t know what emanations from penumbras are. Young lawyers across America had to pull out their dictionaries when reading [Griswold v. Connecticut] for the first time. A penumbra is an astronomical term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot — and it is another way to describe something unclear or uncertain. “Emanation” is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay — it also means “an emission.”

In order to get the outcome they want when a piece of legislation directly violates the constitution, liberals are forced to find “penumbras from emanations.” They must twist themselves into intellectual pretzels, as Donnald Verrilli attempted to do during his time in front of the Court.

The president miscalculated what the Supreme Court’s response to Obamacare would be, and I think he has miscalculated what the American people’s response will be to his current rhetoric. The president has lit a match, not even realizing that he’s also doused himself in gasoline. It will be interesting to see whether he chooses to blow that match out or inadvertently immolate himself.

Robert Gibbs, Beltway Brown-Noser and Jim Carrey Lloyd Christmas Fodder.

The catalyst for this blog was Robert Gibbs’ foray into the Twitterverse, offering up his Gibbsian absurdity for the world to see in 140 characters or

Nipp, Nipp, Nipp, Nipp, Nopp, Nopp, Nopp, Nopp.

less. And so, it brings a great smile to my face that the guy who owes his career to being one heck of a Beltway Brown-Noser gives me the opportunity to cover his latest newsworthy moment.

Is it possible to lampoon a guy who uses the Sarah Palin scandal de rigueur to mask his woeful tenure as a Press Secretary? Is it possible to ridicule a guy who depends on the Gibbs Giggle Index to obfuscate Obama administration failures (When the truth is, they’re often laughing at him for the efforts)? The answer: Yes. And you can archive that, Gibber.

Ask yourself if you’ve ever gotten any worthwhile information from a Robert Gibbs Press Briefing?  For the life of me I can’t think of any substantive information that has been given out at one these fiascos…for years. Am I wrong, or just jaded? It feels as though Gibbs looked at wonderful examples of past Press Secretaries and said, “Nope, I’ll model myself after that guy.

The next time Gibbs mentions Supreme Court cases the American people disagree with, I wonder if someone will ask him about Kelo vs. New London. Somehow I doubt anyone would ask Robert “Captain Stubing” Gibbs about a decision that completely undermines your private property rights because it’s kind of a bummer to think that one of the pillars of a free society was demolished right in front of our eyes and no one noticed. My own reaction, years later, is still something akin to Snake’s death. Or was it… Snaaake’s death?

Regardless, all you need to know about Robert Gibbs has already been said-by Jim Carrey.