VIDEO: Sean Penn Blasts Tea Party as 'Get the N-Word Out of the White House' Party
Love Sean Penn or loathe him, you have to at least admire any modern movie star harboring any degree of spontaneity or candor in an otherwise hypersensitive, overcalculated celebrity culture. (To say nothing of having the distinction of having been in both a Terrence Malick film and Scarlett Johansson's pants at the same time; the man is nothing if not a tireless striver for the American Dream.) Penn's latest flare-up occurred in the middle of an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, to whom the two-time Oscar winner ranted about the prominence of the Tea Party -- or, in Penn's delectable neologic parlance, the "Get the N-Word Out of the White House" Party.
I'm sure this will go over incredibly well with Penn's right-wing targets. Cue the Big Hollywood takedown in 3... 2...
[via THR]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Love Penn. Tellin it like it is. Rare these days.
He's wrong, as usual.
I'm not a fan of the Tea Party, but they simply haven't demonstrated that they're racists. What they have demonstrated in abundance is that examples of idiocy from cliche spewing, ignorant, celebrity liberals are like food to them. They will eat this up, and be emboldened by it.
By the way, there's a perfectly good reason to get Obama out of the White House that progressives like Penn should support. When Obama assassinated an American citizen without due process a few weeks ago he violated the Constitution in as flagrant and extravagant a manner as possible. By LAW he should be impeached and prosecuted.
Of course, neither Penn or his ilk, nor the Tea Party, seem to care, as it doesn't fit the narratives that either obsess over. Neither party cares about actually standing up for the Constitution, their country, the rule of law or the rights of their fellow citizens. They simply care about pursuing the downfall of their ideological enemies. To the soft headed liberals, the idea that their guy could be a criminal and an enemy of liberalism is anathema - he's one of the good guys! To the Tea Party and the rest of the conservatives, the idea that an accused terrorist should be entitled to protection from murder by the state is just as bad. So we all lose. Again.
Ben, your right on! To much stonewalling, hate and ignorance and not enough fixin!
This gets him noticed, but we have to overlook his love affair with Hugo Chavez, a man who shuts down opposition broadcasters. Not only does he bizarrely support a censoring autocrat, Penn has said people should be jailed for calling Chavez a dictator. I thought that was anethema to artists.
Absolutely no racism in the Democratic Party. "Since 2000 there have been over 4,200 complaints filed against unions for racial discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. In some cities, it is a bigger problem than in others. However, the one area where union racism seems to rear its ugly head the most often is with the construction trade unions, where African Americans are often excluded from work."
Democrats are as pure as the driven white snow. I guess they are recently reformed. As a member of the Teamsters, I saw racism first hand. Nearly all of the union members were lilly white and those who held the racist views were very much old time Democrats. Just first hand experience...probably lying no doubt. That would never happen in the union halls. No, of course not.
So, Ben, your preference for the killing of the "American citizen" would be what? Capture him and bring him to trial in a U.S. court? Sure, you'd agree to that in a minute, right? Or just dump him Gitmo? Oh, that's right, you guys want to shut Gitmo down, too. Well, this President is not the first one to do this (pay attention to the years in this quote):
"In the past, the U.S. has killed Americans overseas but they were viewed as "collateral damage." In 2002, the CIA killed American-born Kamal Derwish, a member of the "Lackawanna 6" terror group during a CIA Predator drone strike. Derwish was driving in a car with other members of al Qaeda, the government said.
In 2008, a missile strike in Somalia killed American Ruben Shumpert, a Seattle man suspected of being an Islamist radical. Shumpert was wanted by federal authorities on gun and counterfeit currency charges. He had agreed to plead guilty but fled the country days before sentencing in 2004.
The Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al Awlaki, who has become a prominent influence with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was at a meeting with leaders of the terror group when U.S. officials knowingly launched a cruise missile strike to eliminate the terror leaders. Several people were killed but Awlaki survived."
Hmmm....2002, 2008....wasn't that under W's watch? And they missed Awlaki previously, when meeting with other Al Qaeda leaders.
It's war, and these "Americans" are aiding and abetting the enemy to do harm to America and Americans. They lose those precious Constitutional rights when committing acts of war against the U.S.
I'm not sure what your point is. Why is it relevant that Bush has done equally awful things? Are you meaning to imply that I am a Bush supporter, and if so, why on earth would you think that? Because I was critical of Obama? If so, your entire post indicates to me that you are guilty of exactly the same binary, us v them thinking I was lamenting in the first place. I am critical of all war criminals and murderers, thank you very much, regardless of their party affiliations.
As for your point about forfeiting constitutional rights - total nonsense, based on inexcusable ignorance. I'm sorry, but the law is very clear, and will not bend to your ridiculous biases. Awlaki was killed illegally. There is absolutely no doubt about this whatsoever. He was killed without any due process far from any war zone. What's more the President has refused to even reveal any evidence that he is a terrorist, claiming the evidence is a "state secret". In other words, when the President of the United States wants to kill someone, they can do so illegally without even charging someone of anything, and while providing no evidence of their 'crimes', and people like you will just buy it. That being the case, I'm seriously asking: What are you not willing to accept from your government? Where is the line, if killing Americans with no charges, no convictions and no evidence having been presented is totally acceptable to you.
Bottom line: You cannot be for the US Constitution and at the same time be for the killing of Awlaki. It is as simple as that. Support for his murder is, by definition, anti American.
Oh, by the way, to answer your original question, my "preference for the killing of the 'American citizen'" (What's with the quotation marks? That's exactly what he is) would be... drumroll: Don't kill him.
That'd be a good start.
As for capturing him and bringing him to trial in a U.S. court? Obviously that would be my preference. Why wouldn't it be? Of course, he'd have to be charged, which is difficult when your government is unwilling to provide any evidence of his crimes.
On second thought, better to illegally murder him. No need to abide by the law when your own citizenry/potential targets believe you to be above it, right? Besides, a "terrorist" (see, that's how you use quotes) getting his violent comeuppance is always sure to garner you some bipartisan support. Everybody wins, except the people.