Month: February 2019

Up until now, I’ve been pretty happy with the U.S. approach to Venezuela. The Venezuelans call the shots, setting up the legal infrastructure for transition rule (based on Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez’s own constitution no less), the international community supports them, the Citgo oil earnings are transferred to the legitimate leaders, the sanctions flow on the remaining dictatorship, the pressure is quite open for the Venezuelan military to defect, and the humanitarian aid for the starving flows. Venezuelans themselves (in their millions, as the street protests show) are in the driver’s seat. The picture is one of them taking back their country, their once-great democracy, and it’s a great example for all nations under detestable socialist dictatorships to follow.

But the dictatorship’s vicious burning of humanitarian aid trucks full of food and medicine, as hungry Venezuelans ran into the burning trucks to try to claw it back, and dictator Nicolas Maduro’s grotesque crowing about the whole specter, has left even the legitimate government of President Juan Guaido declaring “all options are on the table.” 

Maybe the aid can get in through air drops. Maybe it can get in through in smaller batches less likely to be noticed by the border goons determined to make sure Venezuelans stay hungry.

But Guaido seems more open to cutting to the chase, and just getting the dictatorship out of there. He’s meeting with Vice President Mike Pence in Colombia today, and Pence says there will be some “concrete actions.” In other words, there won’t be “stern warnings.” Maybe that means more sanctions, maybe air drops, or, the hot one, U.S. military intervention.

Which rather raises the point that it might just be Noreiga Time for Maduro.

Would the U.S. yank him out of there as it did for the former Panamanian dictator, back in 1989?

Well, if you remember the story, Noriega was taken out by U.S. Marines precisely because he was a drug dealer. 

Panamanians that I spoke with a few years later on a trip there – and these were people from the leftist party there – said they were happy it happened, even though there had been local casualties - which they said numbered more than a hundred deaths. That was because Noriega was running a reign of terror on Panamanian activists in the neighborhoods, killing many of them, as well as using drug-dealing during the crack epidemic as his money stream. He got extricated by the U.S. Marines and Panamanians said they were better off for it. Today, Panama is one of Latin America’s leading success stories, with the highest (or one of the highest, depending on the data) per capita incomes in the hemisphere. You never hear about Panamanian illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Scroll over to Venezuela and look at the drug dealing details there:

Former head of Venezuela’s intelligence services Hugo Carvajal revealed powerful ties between the administration of President Nicolás Maduro and the Hezbollah terrorist group, as well as wide-spread corruption and drug activity, the New York Times reported on Thursday. 

The nefarious activities were directed by Maduro himself as well as Interior Minister Néstor Reverol and former vice-president Tareck El Aissami.

Allegedly, those who were meant to combat drugs were engaged in trafficking them,  Carvajal said. 

El Aissami was not only a drug kingpin, said Carvajal, but also had connections to Hezbollah, and attempted to arrange Hezbollah terrorists to work with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia [FARC] through Venezuela. 

In a meeting that took place in 2009 Hezbollah terrorists met El Aissami and Carvajal in Syria and gave the two Venezuelan state representatives three assault rifles as gifts. 

Whatever this is, it’s a helluva lot more than what we took Noriega out for. Noriega was a threat.

Maduro? He sounds like a mega-threat. And don’t forget that Maduro’s wife also has two household relatives sitting in a U.S. prison for actual drug dealing, picked up by the DEA in Haiti in the act of transporting actual drugs. The drug involvement is thick with the Maduros.

And surprise, surprise, the guy who designed the take-out-Noreiga plan just happens to be the same guy who’s serving as special representative for Venezuela at the State Department these days, none other than Elliott Abrams.

Whether we take out Maduro in the Noriega-style or not, one thing is for sure – we have a guy at the helm who knows exactly how to do it.

What’s interesting is that Abrams is a neo-con, and in the collective mind of the left, this story of Venezuelan government drug-dealing and Hezb’allah-allying is now coming out in the Jerusalem Post. The left insists that neo-cons are all in bed with Israel, and the story picked up is a couple days old, which raises the possibility that it was put there, maybe by an Abrams ally, just to make Maduro more paranoid.

If so, very clever to play on their prejudices.

But one also hopes it’s a warning to Maduro to just get the heck out and save us the trip. Mexico or Cuba should be glad to take him. That said, the freakish Maduro may just get his Noriega time anyway if the Venezuelans want it. If he does, the justification and timing are more than perfect.

 

 

Image credit: Camera screen shot from NBC News.

Up until now, I’ve been pretty happy with the U.S. approach to Venezuela. The Venezuelans call the shots, setting up the legal infrastructure for transition rule (based on Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez’s own constitution no less), the international community supports them, the Citgo oil earnings are transferred to the legitimate leaders, the sanctions flow on the remaining dictatorship, the pressure is quite open for the Venezuelan military to defect, and the humanitarian aid for the starving flows. Venezuelans themselves (in their millions, as the street protests show) are in the driver’s seat. The picture is one of them taking back their country, their once-great democracy, and it’s a great example for all nations under detestable socialist dictatorships to follow.

But the dictatorship’s vicious burning of humanitarian aid trucks full of food and medicine, as hungry Venezuelans ran into the burning trucks to try to claw it back, and dictator Nicolas Maduro’s grotesque crowing about the whole specter, has left even the legitimate government of President Juan Guaido declaring “all options are on the table.” 

Maybe the aid can get in through air drops. Maybe it can get in through in smaller batches less likely to be noticed by the border goons determined to make sure Venezuelans stay hungry.

But Guaido seems more open to cutting to the chase, and just getting the dictatorship out of there. He’s meeting with Vice President Mike Pence in Colombia today, and Pence says there will be some “concrete actions.” In other words, there won’t be “stern warnings.” Maybe that means more sanctions, maybe air drops, or, the hot one, U.S. military intervention.

Which rather raises the point that it might just be Noreiga Time for Maduro.

Would the U.S. yank him out of there as it did for the former Panamanian dictator, back in 1989?

Well, if you remember the story, Noriega was taken out by U.S. Marines precisely because he was a drug dealer. 

Panamanians that I spoke with a few years later on a trip there – and these were people from the leftist party there – said they were happy it happened, even though there had been local casualties - which they said numbered more than a hundred deaths. That was because Noriega was running a reign of terror on Panamanian activists in the neighborhoods, killing many of them, as well as using drug-dealing during the crack epidemic as his money stream. He got extricated by the U.S. Marines and Panamanians said they were better off for it. Today, Panama is one of Latin America’s leading success stories, with the highest (or one of the highest, depending on the data) per capita incomes in the hemisphere. You never hear about Panamanian illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Scroll over to Venezuela and look at the drug dealing details there:

Former head of Venezuela’s intelligence services Hugo Carvajal revealed powerful ties between the administration of President Nicolás Maduro and the Hezbollah terrorist group, as well as wide-spread corruption and drug activity, the New York Times reported on Thursday. 

The nefarious activities were directed by Maduro himself as well as Interior Minister Néstor Reverol and former vice-president Tareck El Aissami.

Allegedly, those who were meant to combat drugs were engaged in trafficking them,  Carvajal said. 

El Aissami was not only a drug kingpin, said Carvajal, but also had connections to Hezbollah, and attempted to arrange Hezbollah terrorists to work with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia [FARC] through Venezuela. 

In a meeting that took place in 2009 Hezbollah terrorists met El Aissami and Carvajal in Syria and gave the two Venezuelan state representatives three assault rifles as gifts. 

Whatever this is, it’s a helluva lot more than what we took Noriega out for. Noriega was a threat.

Maduro? He sounds like a mega-threat. And don’t forget that Maduro’s wife also has two household relatives sitting in a U.S. prison for actual drug dealing, picked up by the DEA in Haiti in the act of transporting actual drugs. The drug involvement is thick with the Maduros.

And surprise, surprise, the guy who designed the take-out-Noreiga plan just happens to be the same guy who’s serving as special representative for Venezuela at the State Department these days, none other than Elliott Abrams.

Whether we take out Maduro in the Noriega-style or not, one thing is for sure – we have a guy at the helm who knows exactly how to do it.

What’s interesting is that Abrams is a neo-con, and in the collective mind of the left, this story of Venezuelan government drug-dealing and Hezb’allah-allying is now coming out in the Jerusalem Post. The left insists that neo-cons are all in bed with Israel, and the story picked up is a couple days old, which raises the possibility that it was put there, maybe by an Abrams ally, just to make Maduro more paranoid.

If so, very clever to play on their prejudices.

But one also hopes it’s a warning to Maduro to just get the heck out and save us the trip. Mexico or Cuba should be glad to take him. That said, the freakish Maduro may just get his Noriega time anyway if the Venezuelans want it. If he does, the justification and timing are more than perfect.

 

 

Image credit: Camera screen shot from NBC News.

Most of the people who care about John Wayne Airport at all are either residents of Orange County, California, or parsimonious travelers looking for deals that can make it cheaper than flying into LAX. That, regrettably, is about to change.

A Los Angeles Times piece from last week has urged the community to take the actor’s name off of the airport because of comments Wayne made in a 1971 interview with Playboy magazine.

Let’s be clear about the remarks Wayne made: They’re highly inappropriate in 2019. They weren’t even appropriate in 1971. They sound like what someone talking extremely coarsely about race and homosexuality a half-century ago would have said. Which is exactly what they are: Someone talking extremely coarsely about race and homosexuality to a porno mag nearly a half-century ago.

Take this comment about black civic involvement, which — like everything else Wayne said — hasn’t aged well:

“With a lot of blacks, there’s quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so,” Wayne said. “But we can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”

TRENDING: ‘Remarkable’ Poll Shows Trump Gaining Ground Among the Groups He Supposedly ‘Hates’

Or on so-called “New Hollywood” films he considered “perverted”: “Oh, ‘Easy Rider,’ ‘Midnight Cowboy’ — that kind of thing. Wouldn’t you say that the wonderful love of those two men in ‘Midnight Cowboy,’ a story about two f**s, qualifies?”

Or on Native Americans: “I don’t feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them, if that’s what you’re asking. Our so-called stealing of this country from them was just a matter of survival. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.”

To be fair, Wayne was an active and identifiable conservative, so it’s not like we can say his remarks were coming from a wholly apolitical individual. However, this is still an actor talking nearly 50 years ago during a much different time from our own. And that, to the Los Angeles Times’ Michael Hiltzik, is the point — he says that since Southern California, in particular Orange County, is becoming more liberal, it’s time to expunge Wayne’s legacy.

“This wouldn’t be the first time that the airport’s name has been the subject of debate. Orange County Supervisors pondered the issue in 2008, when local tourism officials expressed concern that the name failed to convey exactly where the airport is located. There may have been other occasions since 1979, when the supervisors christened the airport at the urging of Supervisor Thomas F. Riley,” Hiltzik wrote.

“Riley was an ex-Marine, but his rationale is lost in the mists of time. It may have had something to do with Wayne’s status as a rock-ribbed Republican conservative, which was Orange County’s self-image in that period.

“But that Orange County no longer exists. That should be evident from the results of November’s election, in which voters turfed out the county’s last remaining GOP members of Congress — some of whom had embraced Donald Trump in a fruitless effort to save their careers — and elected an all-Democratic congressional delegation. Orange County today is such an economically and ethnically diverse community that it’s hard to justify asking any member of that community to board planes at an airport named after an outspoken racist and homophobe, with his strutting statue occupying a central niche in front of the concourse.”

Writing for the Washington Examiner, however, Madeline Fry says that “(i)t’s too late to blacklist John Wayne, and it’s too illegal to ban his films, so critics are going after the only emblem they can: John Wayne Airport.”

“The actor’s opinions have been in print for almost 50 years and, contrary to what some may think, they were problematic back then, too. Removing his name from Orange County’s airport now only validates what many Americans are coming to believe: You can’t say anything anymore, darn it, without being discovered and punished by the mob,” she writes.

And that’s certainly one of the takeaways here: That taking Wayne’s name off the airport validates those who would say this is all about political correctness and about Donald Trump. That’s because it is.

RELATED: Lib-Loving Facebook Runs Interference for Smollett, Bans Post Talking About ‘Hate Hoax’: Report

Perhaps it’s worth noting, too, that the PC police only seem to get themselves worked up about the imprecations of individuals who happen to be conservative.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, considering the prospects of a political run by the quarter-Jewish wife of then-Tennessee Sen. Cordell Hull, infamously told another politician, “You and I, Burt, are old English and Dutch stock. We know who our ancestors are. We know there is no Jewish blood in our veins, but a lot of these people do not know whether there is Jewish blood in their veins or not.”

Nor was this a one-off. During the Second World War, the Roosevelt administration carried out a study about the resettlement of European Jewry after the conflict was over. Roosevelt told Winston Churchill the aim of the plan was “essentially is to spread the Jews thin all over the world” as opposed to letting them agglomerate themselves in one place.

John F. Kennedy, meanwhile, was fond of calling the gay African-American literary figure James Baldwin “Martin Luther Queen.”

In America’s largest city, FDR and JFK adorn the names of many institutions, not the least of which are a major highway and the primary international airport.

No, what they said wasn’t quite as problematic (or as late) as what Wayne said. However, these were men who got things named after them because of their political careers.

Wayne’s image as a conservative in conservative-ish Orange County, California, may have had something to do with naming the airport after him, but it probably had just as much to do with the fact that he was one of the most recognizable movie stars in the world.

That doesn’t make one interview he gave half a century ago all right, nor does it validate the comments. But it’s important to understand that they came in a different era from a man who didn’t live to see the changes of the past 50 years, doesn’t have the chance to defend himself and wasn’t given the honor because of his views on minorities.

“Don’t, like Wayne, become a reactionary,” Fry said in concluding her piece.

We agree.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

It’s no secret that humans need meaning. Meaning is arguably one of the most important human necessities and essential to a happy, fulfilling existence.

What gives a person meaning? Most people would say family, career, or religion. Along with a close circle of friends, these aspects of life tend to give a person happiness and a sense of purpose.

The factors of family and career and their connections to meaning are obvious. A person goes out to his or her job in the morning, works long hours and comes home at night to provide for a family. Religion connects to meaning as well, since people who believe in God know that there is a higher purpose in life, namely God’s purpose for His creating humanity. In fact, most religions tell their adherents to provide for their families and communities, to be as charitable as possible, which in turn helps to achieve fulfillment and meaning in life.

However, the idea of socialism makes fulfilling this fundamental need virtually impossible.

What are the reasons for this?

For one, socialism, by definition, abdicates personal responsibility. It lends to the mindset of not having to care for oneself, one’s family or one’s community, because the government will instead. Thinking this way inevitably makes a person more selfish and lazy, since he or she knows that the government will always hold everyone’s hand, so the individual doesn’t have to help himself or anyone else.

Another reason is that a mindset of a cradle to grave utopia, where everything is provided to a person, will always lead to a person becoming bored. Humans crave purpose, almost as we crave food and oxygen. As psalmist says in the book of Psalms (28:2), “For you shall eat the labor of your hands; happy shall you be, and it shall be well with you.” In other words, when someone works hard and he or she benefits from that work, that helps to create happiness and satisfaction. However, if someone is handed everything without earning it, it will most likely lead to a sense of emptiness. This phenomenon explains why most who win the lottery become miserable.

Moreover, the idea of socialism, where the foundation is that the world is handed to a person on a silver platter, is antithetical to Americanism. Putting aside the unconstitutional aspects of it, socialism also goes against the American spirit and natural law. Americans have historically been known for their rugged individualism, so much so that it is a major part of the American identity. Our history is imbued with this, from the colonists to the revolutionaries to the settlers out west.

We always need to remember that from its seizing of the means of production, to its legacy of gulags and mass murder, socialism truly is the most destructive movement in world history. And due to its killing of human purpose, socialism’s victims first and foremost include the socialists themselves.

A group of establishment former officials and appointees will declare Monday that the cartels’ flood of lethal drugs, cheap labor, and reckless criminals across the southern border is not a national emergency, according to a report in the Washington Post.

The statement by 58 Republican and Democrat appointees is intended to provide evidence in the planned lawsuits against President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency and his construction of a border barrier.

“Under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the president to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border,” the group’s planned statement states, according to the Washington Post.

In 2016, New York real estate developer Donald Trump was elected president to help fix the various problems that were created, ignored, or tolerated by many of the establishment officials who have signed the letter.

The Washington Post reported the planned announcement, Democrats and Never Trump Republicans signed:

Signing were Eliot A. Cohen, State Department counselor under President George W. Bush; Thomas R. Pickering, President George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations; John F. Kerry, Obama’s second secretary of state; Susan E. Rice, Obama’s national security adviser; Leon E. Panetta, Obama’s CIA director and defense secretary; as well as former intelligence and security officials who served under Republican and Democratic administrations.

The establishment group downplays the growing economic problem of illegal migration, largely by ignoring the evidence that the cartel-aided Central American economic migrants are now using the catch and release rules to legally get through the border without having to take the risk of illegally walking through desert and scrubland.

According to the Washington Post, the group said that “illegal border crossings are at nearly 40-year lows. Undetected unlawful entries at the U.S.-Mexico border decreased from 851,000 to nearly 62,000 between 2006 and 2016, they said, citing Department of Homeland Security statistics.”

The argument ignores the damaging impact of cheap-labor migration on Americans’ wages and the impact of additional crime committed by migrants against Americans living outside wealthy enclaves. The group’s claim also assumes that Trump cannot declare an emergency because President George W. Bush did not declare an emergency — even though Bush wanted to tolerate high levels of illegal migration:

George W. Bush’s aide slams Trump’s reform to help Americans graduates. The reform ends Obama’s bonus work-permits for 100,000 spouses of cheap H-1B visa workers who hold college-grad jobs in US. Biz hates plan b/c cheap visa workers = higher stock values https://t.co/lo21L97JGd

— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) February 23, 2019

The members of the group also downplay the drug problem, which killed roughly 40,000 people in President Barack Obama’s first year as president. By 2016, the death toll reached 63,000. In 2017, the death toll climbed to 70,000, and many reports suggest the deaths rose in 2018 while establishment politicians opposed Trump’s immigration reforms, border wall, border surveillance, and deportation efforts.

According to the Post, the signers “state that there is no drug trafficking emergency that can be addressed by a wall along the southern border, noting that ‘the overwhelming majority of opioids’ that enter the United States are brought in through legal ports of entry, citing the Justice Department.”

Advocates of the border wall do not say it will end drug deaths. But they say a barrier can help block the movement of drugs and drug traffickers who distribute the drugs into the United States, especially as border officials step up surveillance of vehicles passing through the ports of entry:

The response of our political class to the drug crisis is a mirror image of what it SHOULD be doing, but it would rather attack profitable problems than deal with what’s actually killing people.https://t.co/X4zKCwRjOa

— John Hayward (@Doc_0) September 20, 2018

One of the more prominent anti-Trump Republicans on the Hill told Margaret Brennan of “Face the Nation” that he believed the president’s national emergency declaration was warranted.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, recently returned from deployment at the border with his air national guard unit, says that what he saw convinced him that the president is right to make the emergency declaration.

The Hill:

“I went down there kind of undecided,” Kinzinger said on “Face the Nation” on CBS.

“I think if this was just an issue of immigration it wouldn’t constitute a national emergency,” he added. “But what I saw was really disturbing.”

He recounted witnessing a woman “hunkered down in the desert” after the individuals who brought her across the border abandoned her, as well as another instance where his unit found 70 pounds of methamphetamine being transported into the country.

Kinzinger acknowledged that government statistics show border apprehensions are at the lowest levels in decades, but said what he saw firsthand showed drugs and human trafficking pose a significant problem.

As a result, Kinzinger said he won’t vote to block President Trump‘s national emergency declaration to secure funds that have not been congressionally appropriated for his long-desired wall along the southern border.

“I wish this would’ve happened a different way,” he said, but added that he believes Trump has the authority to declare an emergency.

“If this was just about immigration I would disagree,” he said. “I do think this is a security threat. It’s a security threat with the amount of drugs coming over the border and the human trafficking that I’ve seen.”

Kinzinger refused to support Trump for president in 2016 and has been harshly critical of the president since then. He was primaryed by the Club for Growth in 2018, but won with 78% of the vote. He is well respected on the Hill in military and national security matters, having served 3 tours in Iraq before entering Congress.

His words will not be heeded by Democrats. But there may be some Republican Senators, thinking of opposing the president’s declaration, who might be swayed by a member generally seen as knowledgable and steady on security issues. 

One of the more prominent anti-Trump Republicans on the Hill told Margaret Brennan of “Face the Nation” that he believed the president’s national emergency declaration was warranted.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, recently returned from deployment at the border with his air national guard unit, says that what he saw convinced him that the president is right to make the emergency declaration.

The Hill:

“I went down there kind of undecided,” Kinzinger said on “Face the Nation” on CBS.

“I think if this was just an issue of immigration it wouldn’t constitute a national emergency,” he added. “But what I saw was really disturbing.”

He recounted witnessing a woman “hunkered down in the desert” after the individuals who brought her across the border abandoned her, as well as another instance where his unit found 70 pounds of methamphetamine being transported into the country.

Kinzinger acknowledged that government statistics show border apprehensions are at the lowest levels in decades, but said what he saw firsthand showed drugs and human trafficking pose a significant problem.

As a result, Kinzinger said he won’t vote to block President Trump‘s national emergency declaration to secure funds that have not been congressionally appropriated for his long-desired wall along the southern border.

“I wish this would’ve happened a different way,” he said, but added that he believes Trump has the authority to declare an emergency.

“If this was just about immigration I would disagree,” he said. “I do think this is a security threat. It’s a security threat with the amount of drugs coming over the border and the human trafficking that I’ve seen.”

Kinzinger refused to support Trump for president in 2016 and has been harshly critical of the president since then. He was primaryed by the Club for Growth in 2018, but won with 78% of the vote. He is well respected on the Hill in military and national security matters, having served 3 tours in Iraq before entering Congress.

His words will not be heeded by Democrats. But there may be some Republican Senators, thinking of opposing the president’s declaration, who might be swayed by a member generally seen as knowledgable and steady on security issues. 

The 91st Academy Awards went down last night and all of Hollywood’s beautiful people gathered together in all of their debauched and decadent glory to hate on America, attack President Trump and engage in the usual self-congratulatory circle jerk.

According to reports (I sure as hell wasn’t watching that shit) the latest politicized awards ceremony didn’t disappoint and there is little doubt that television ratings for the Oscars will be a major disappointment when they are released later.

It was abundantly clear that President Trump was in the heads of all of the virtue signaling celebs and holier than thou race-baiting clowns who showed up at the Dolby Theater in Los Angeles by simply taking a look at the stage which was made to resemble one of America’s most famous hairdos.

The Oscars stage this year strongly resembles Donald Trump’s hair https://t.co/RkCkXt2k8i pic.twitter.com/LBVJWYfglH

— New York Post (@nypost) February 25, 2019

The hypocrisy was so thick that you could practically cut it with a knife because nothing says social justice like a $30 million diamond.

Lady Gaga wears $30M Tiffany diamond at the 2019 Oscars https://t.co/bkoWV0566N pic.twitter.com/KM8pXf8Ipa

— Page Six (@PageSix) February 25, 2019

And here’s a helluva fashion statement:

#PoseFX star @theebillyporter slays in a tux dress on the #Oscars red carpet https://t.co/Z0q00nEoz6 pic.twitter.com/b0YNdDOiBM

— Variety (@Variety) February 24, 2019

But it was Spike Lee who stole the show as the race-obsessed director not only bagged a statue for best-adapted screenplay for his anti-Trump propaganda movie BlacKKKlansman but during his acceptance speech, the diminutive racist dwarf who was wearing a purple outfit that looked like a cross between a mailman and a pimp rambled on for a while before shitting all over his cast and crew by minimizing their work by launching into a tirade against the POTUS.

But Lee was only getting warmed up.

Earlier in the week, the 61-year-old who has made a boatload of money and enjoys all the perks given to celebs in a society that worships them and who should be a happy man instead of a bitter old racist crank bemoaned #OscarsSoWhite because “black folks” rarely win any awards.

Spike Lee Credits #OscarsSoWhite for Nomination: “Every 10 Years Black Folks Get Awards” https://t.co/ZMlC99MqHc pic.twitter.com/vwnQACdLPC

— Hollywood Reporter (@THR) February 22, 2019

Following his win, he was so excited that he looked like he was trying to dry hump Samuel “Mr. Motherfucker” Jackson in front of the audience.

Support your friends like Spike Lee and Samuel L. Jackson support each other at the #Oscars pic.twitter.com/pcwZuutiGD

— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) February 25, 2019

Then once the moment that everyone had been waiting for finally arrived – THE ENVELOPE PLEASE – Lee threw a shit fit when BlacKKKlansman was beaten out for Best Picture by the more optimistic “Green Room” starring Mahershala Ali (of HBO’s third season of True Detective) which offers a much more positive version of race relations than the professional grievance monger specializes in.

Acting like every bit the asshole that he is when he’s watching the New York Knicks from his courtside seat at Madison Square Garden, Lee was visibly upset when his own movie didn’t score the night’s big prize and tried to storm out of the building but the doors were locked.

Spike Lee stormed out of the Oscars after ‘Green Book’ best picture win, says Academy made ‘bad call’ https://t.co/SeJBU7gJz5

— Variety (@Variety) February 25, 2019

Via Variety, “Spike Lee Storms Out of Oscars After ‘Green Book’ Win, Says Academy Made ‘Bad Call’”:

Not everyone was happy about “Green Book”‘s best picture win.

According to reports from inside the Dolby theater, “BlackKklansman” director Spike Lee was visibly upset by the announcement and tried to leave the ceremony before the speeches had concluded.

“I’m snakebit. Every time someone’s driving somebody, I lose,” he later told reporters backstage, in reference to his breakout film, “Do the Right Thing,” losing the Oscar for Best Screenplay to “Driving Miss Daisy” in 1990. “I thought I was court side at the Garden and the refs made a bad call.”

After presenter Julia Roberts announced “Green Book” as Best Picture, AP reporter Andrew Dalton was one of several journalists who noticed Lee wave his arms in anger before storming out of the theater. However, before he could leave, he was stopped at the doors and was forced to return to his seat once the speeches had stopped.

Jordan Peele, the Oscar-winning writer-director behind last year’s “Get Out,” reportedly didn’t clap either, nor did other attendees nearby.

The backlash appears to be in response to controversy surrounding the film, which had been criticized for perpetuating a white savior narrative.

He may have his Oscar now but Spike Lee is still an ultra-bigoted asshole.

In other notable news: the miracles of Wakanda finally ran out as Black Panther also lost out at Best Picture and another portrayal of a gay man landed the Best Actor statue for Rami Malek who portrayed doomed Queen singer Freddie Mercury in the biopic Bohemian Rhapsody.

Otherwise, it was every bit the liberal shit show that one would expect in the post-Obama era.