Not All Speech Should Be Protected

I love the internet. It’s provided me with hours of entertainment, it’s let me sell a book, and it’s let me meet all of you. That’s pretty darn cool. But the internet does have a downside. Specifically, it lets the most hateful turds do their best to intimidate those they don’t like. We need a law, dammit!! Actually, we don’t.

It really is undeniable that the internet can be a problem, particularly when it comes to “hate speech.” Indeed, some corners of the internet are a seething cauldron of hate and idiocy. But here’s the thing, we don’t need laws to stop hate or idiocy. For one thing, hate and idiocy don’t actually harm us. Sticks and stones, my friends. So why do we need more laws to stop things that don’t really harm us? Isn’t that just using the power of government to force your pet peeves on people?

Not to mention, letting people speak their minds and expose their twisted views is an incredibly useful tool for discovering who you shouldn’t trust. Would you rather know that the normal looking guy in the bowtie thinks Jews are evil creatures, or would you rather only know that he smiles a lot?

Equally problematic is the idea of how we define hate. One person’s hate is another person’s truth. So whose opinion is right, and where will the government draw the line? Moreover, how do you keep the hypersensitive from getting their views imposed through the government? They are the most likely to make such an attempt after all. Do we really trust that the government won’t start declaring things like Christianity “hate speech” merely because it argues that certain acts are immoral? Many liberals already make that argument.

Let’s face it, there are very strong reasons to allow hate speech and there really aren’t any valid ones which justify banning it except that some people don't like it.

But there is another angle to this. Sometimes people hide behind the First Amendment to do more than just spew hate and stupidity. Indeed, they cross over that line and advocate violence. Now that, is a real problem.

And that brings me to Jesse Morton, the founder of a militant Muslim website “Revolution Muslim.” Jesse just got sentenced to 11.5 years for making threats against the creators of South Park because of their episode featuring Mohammed in a bear suit. He also admitted to conspiring to solicit the murder of Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris, who drew Mohammed as part of a protest against the intimidation of Danish cartoonists.

Jesse’s conviction is exactly how “hate” speech needs to be curtailed. Rather than trying to ban people from spewing idiotic opinions, we should only punish those cross the line into advocating illegality. Jesse made threats and conspired to make threats involving the injury or murder of other individuals. That is not some nebulous hateful opinion, it is in fact a crime, and has always has been recognized as such since the foundations of our justice system were laid. When he crossed the line from giving opinion to soliciting crimes, he needed to be punished.

In fact, the same thing needs to be done to the army of idiots who are taking to Twitter to issue their own death threats. If you tweet that you will kill someone or rape them or their children, that is a threat and you should be locked up, whether your target is a public figure or not. If you ask someone to kill someone else, then you have solicited murder. If you suggest that it would please you if someone died or was raped, or you simply hope they are killed or raped, that is solicitation. Those are crimes.

The internet is indeed out of control, but it’s not the handful of lunatics whining about racial purity or how everyone else is evil that are the problem. The problem is this group of supposedly normal people who now think it’s acceptable to make threats or solicit crimes against political opponents they don’t like. It’s time these people got rounded up and sent to jail, just like Jesse Morton, so that people stop doing this. If something isn’t done soon, this will spin out of control, if it hasn’t already.

Thoughts?

P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Liberalism Is Sick

Totalitarianism and privilege runs in the blood of liberals. They want to control everyone else, but place themselves above the law. We’ve just had some classic examples of this. Observe the vile petulance of the left. . .

● S.W.A.T.ing: For some time now, prominent conservatives (including bloggers like Erick Erickson of RedState) have experienced the joys of finding the SWAT team showing up at their homes. Why? Because some liberal group has learned how to hack into the phone system and call 911 pretending to be the conservative. These calls go something like this: “I am Erick Erickson and I just shot my wife.”

Obviously, this is a crime. It is also despicable. Think about the kind of pathetic, abusive mindset someone would need to send the police screaming to someone’s house on a false murder claim? That’s Nazi-tactics. What happens when the cops show up and shoot someone by mistake? What about the emotional toll on these people’s children? Think of the people who might get killed because the police are distracted? Think of the waste of resources and the effect on the 911 system when police start doubting the veracity of calls.

But this has become the modern liberal mindset. They are abusive little Nazis who seek to instill terror in their enemies and they don’t care about the damage they do in the process. To them, it’s all legitimate -- calling out the cops, death threats by phone, mail or twitter, bomb threats to events they don’t like, property damage, arson. We have reached a point where liberals are becoming a menace to society. And something will need to be done about them. . . perhaps the old liberal favorite of re-education?

● Uncontrollable Rage: Wisconsin once again exposed the twisted emotional wreckage that is liberalism as liberals everywhere devolved into whiny rage about the election results. One guy told a camera he hopes Lt. Kleefisch dies of colon cancer. Another liberal idiot was so incapable of handling rejection that they actually slapped Dem. Candidate Tom Barrett right after he gave his concession speech. Apparently, it was Barrett’s fault the public didn’t hate Walker. . . or this liberal wanted Walker to cling to the “slim” hopes of overturning a 6.9% defeat. So much for losing with grace. Another liberal sobbed “this is the end of democracy.” How idiotic. Just because the public doesn’t agree with your view, somehow that’s the end of democracy? Someone needs a civics class. Then we have the violent Twits. They posted things like this:

KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER! Ole Bitch Ass Pig Ass Nigga!!!!

Somebody need to Abe Lincoln Scott Walker cave frog lookin ass.

I wanna kill scott walker so fucking baddd!!!!! & the racist dumb assholes that voted for him #nbs

Please somebody kill Scott Walker.

You couldn’t find a less intelligent, less hateful set of morons if you tried. And note the obvious racism. Yet liberals like to think they’re smarter? Ha. These fools can barely speak and certainly can’t think. Heck, if you want to proof of evolution, this is it -- liberals are the missing link. . . not quite human yet.

Again, frankly, it’s getting to the point that liberals need to be medicated or locked up for everyone’s good. They prove time and again that they are violent, racist creatures of hate who seek to instill terror when they don’t get their own ways. That’s called psychosis, and psychotics should be locked up for everyone’s protection.

● Heil Moochelle: Madame O has jumped on the food Nazi bandwagon once again and is expressing support for the idiotic idea of banning large drinks in New York City. This is laughable nonsense. For one thing, as with all other liberal ideas, this is unworkable. How, pray tell, do you stop someone from buying two 16 oz. drinks? Whoops, I just found the hole in the security net.

This is more evidence that liberals really are Nazis. They want to control every aspect of your life right down to how much cola you can put into a single container at a time. Think how petty that is! In fact, calling them Nazis is a bit unfair to the Nazis because they weren’t nearly the control freaks liberals are. And why am I not surprised that the people with the least grip on reality (see above) are the people most inclined to tell everyone else how to live? Pathetic.

● I Am Above The Law: Amanda Bynes (who?) is pathetic. She’s apparently an actress, though you wouldn’t know it by me, and she’s a drunk, a fool, a liar and a fascist. Two days ago she got caught DUI. Did she quietly pay her ticket like everyone else who gets caught? Heck no, she’s a liberal celebrity! Laws aren’t meant for people like her!! So first she refused to blow into the breathalyzer (which is a stupid move, especially for someone who claims they weren’t drunk). Then she took to Twitter, where all morons go to display their moronism, and she tweeted this:

“Hey @BarackObama, I don’t drink. Please fire the cop who arrested me.”

Well, honey, that’s not how the world works even for you. For one thing, your lord and master has ZERO power to fire a local police officer. You would know that if you weren’t liberal and stupid (but that is redundant). Secondly, they don’t fire people for doing their jobs just because some celebrity turd doesn’t like how they do it. But this is how liberals think: laws are meant for the little people and if you dare to apply the same law to them, well, then you need to be fired because you failed to recognize the superiority of the person you so ruthlessly treated like everyone else. What a vile little creature she is, I hope the cop sues her for something. By the way, appealing to the President to save your butt from a DUI is pretty much the definition of narcissism, another standard liberal trait.

● Who Cares About Human Life?: Patti Smith, a singer, just made a fascinating statement. For decades, liberals have whined about how any death is a tragedy and how we should go to any extent (including wrapping kids in bubblewrap) to prevent any death. But we know their willingness to take any step is selective and depends on who gets hurt and by whom. Enter Patti Smith, who is upset with Obama for continuing the war on terrorism. Why? I’ll let the callous dipsh*t explain it herself:

“[Terrorism is] not the most important issue in the world. When you think about how many people the terrorists have killed, its nothing. It’s not as many as die on a bicycle in America probably in a year or something.”

In other words, who cares, it’s only a couple people. And to make her point clear, she added this:

“I’ve said this over and over, but I’ll say it a million more times — I’m concerned more about the death of a bee than I am about terrorism. Because we’re losing hives and bees by the millions because of such strong pesticides. We can live with terrorism. We can’t live without the bee.”

Nice huh? Not only does she write off the deaths from terrorism (cost of business, I guess), but she’s more concerned about bees than the people who died. Wanna bet she believes products which might kill someone should be banned?

● Misplaced Tolerance: Finally, we have this little bit of intense hypocrisy. Janice Roberts, a 63-year old Masshole “anti-war” activist, has refused to rent an apartment to Sgt. Joel Morgan because he’s a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. So much for tolerance and so much for the lie that “we’re against war, not soldiers.”

What’s more, at the same time, over in New Mexico, the state’s Court of Appeals has ruled that a private photo studio cannot refuse service to people based on sexual orientation. The studio owner had argued that this violated his religious and moral beliefs but the court didn’t really care. This is so typical of liberal tolerance. Tolerate those whose causes you like and use the force of law to crush those whose causes you don’t.

Is it just me or does liberalism seem increasingly sick to you?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Recall! Recall! Tweet! Tweet! Bang! Bang!

After several sore losers declared that the stunning defeat of the recall effort to remove Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker “is the end of democracy” and “the end of America as we know it,” a few [hundred] non-violent tweeters put it a bit stronger. Now you must remember that Republicans use warlike rhetoric and David Axelrod has called conservatives “contract killers." So let’s take a quick look at the reasoned, peaceful way Democrats handle an electoral loss.

While the Democratic pundits ran away from the loss, blaming the disaster on “outside money,” the Supreme Court (resulting from the Citizens United case), the misalignment of Mars and Venus, distortion of the facts about public sector pay and pensions, and pretty much anything but liberalism and public sector union excesses, a few of the rank and file decided that Walker had to go. Not by recall. They tried that. They were a bit more pointed. One might think they were even a little angry and ready to implement the ever-popular leftist mantra “by any means necessary.”

Here are a few Twitter examples of how the peaceable left thinks Walker should be dealt with:

@DONTTouchTheFRO: They gone JFK Scott Walker. Shoot his mfn head off BANG BANG!!! *chief keef voice*...
@SeXXX_Symbol_: Somebody need to Abe Lincoln Scott Walker cave frog lookin ass. ...
@realwesleywess: Someone from the NRA should shoot Scott Walker in the head, GTA-style. ...
@caleb_white: Scott walker will die within the next week ive already payed for the hit ...

And here’s how they plan to get to Governor Walker through his family:

@SwaggedTf_Out: NBS I Know What School Scott Walker Son Go To


Nice, huh? I’ll be interested to see how the FBI and DHS react to all of this. The truth is, they’ll probably do nothing, with the possible exception of investigating me for writing an article containing certain key words which trigger automatic followup of “dangerous threats” used on the internet. I will note that these are equal opportunity threateners—they mentioned Democrat John Kennedy. My assessment of the intelligence level of these clowns is that they probably don’t know JFK was a Democrat who signed an executive order granting collective bargaining rights to public employees (even FDR thought that was far too radical an idea).

I believe that Barack Obama will jump into this fray immediately, just as he did to support the recall and the Democratic candidate. Which is to say, he will do absolutely nothing. I just don’t picture him calling Eric Holder into his office and ordering him to do something about threats that are direct violations of federal law. He’s too busy keeping his skirts clean for the pleasure of his radical base. And while I’m at it, did you catch the one tweet Obama did in support of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (Walker’s opponent for the recall and loser of the previous regular election)? Tweeted The One: “I stand by him.” Isn’t that the kind of thing you say after your best friend is arrested for drunk driving or a political ally has been caught online with his pants down (literally)?

Democrats have been hectoring Republicans and conservatives for “harsh language” which might result in future violence by the deranged. I am now patiently waiting for their condemnation of these Walker-haters who have gone two or three steps beyond simple harsh language. These threats aren’t even veiled. But then Scott Walker is a Republican who stepped on the toes of the unions and the something-for-nothing 99%ers, so maybe we should just overlook a little intemperate language.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Burning Down The House

If there’s one thing liberals/leftists just can’t get out of their systems, it’s the desire to act like Nazis. They just love the idea of imprisoning and killing those who disagree with them. And no, I’m not kidding. Every single socialist movement the world over has rounded up opponents and even here there are those who openly wish such things. . . people like global warming enthusiast Steve Zwick.

Steve Zwick, for those who don’t know, is a “climate change” alarmist who periodically writes for Forbes magazine. In his most recent article, he pulled a Hitler. Specifically, he said this:

“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. . . They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”

Stick in the word “Jews” and this thing comes right out of any speech by Hitler. Note how Zwick suggest the creation of an enemies list. Those people need to be marked, perhaps with a yellow sun on their lapels. They are to be considered subhuman. And when Zwick decides it’s time for his final solution, we are to burn their houses and drown them. They must pay for their treachery, these climate Jews.

And don’t think this is an isolated incident. Earlier this month, University of Oregon “Professor” Kari Norgaard (right) said climate change skeptics are akin to “racists” and should be “treated” (medically) as if they had a mental disorder. Norgaard also wrote a letter to Obama in which she called on Obama to suspend democracy to satisfy her climate-fetish. Norgaard, by the way, is a big supporter of Obama climate advisor John P. Holdren who wrote in 1977 that we should carry out forced abortions, mandatory sterilization procedures and drugging of the water supply to weed out the surplus supply of humans. She has also praised NASA global warming alarmist Dr. James Hansen, who has advocated eco-terrorism, including blowing up damns and demolishing cities in the hopes of returning the planet to an agrarian age.

She’s not alone either in advocating dictatorship. Environmental James Lovelock asserted that “democracy must be put on hold to combat global warming.” (Maybe that’s where Dem. Gov. Bev Perdue got the idea that we should suspend elections until Obama can fix the economy?)

In 2006, environmentalist magazine Grist Magazine wrote that there should be “Nuremberg- style war crimes trials” for the “bastards” who are part of the “denial industry” who oppose the global warming enthusiasts. . . both Al Gore and Bill Moyer have endorsed that magazine.

Nice huh?

Anyway, back to Zwick. Besides advocating the murder of people with whom he disagrees, Zwick also became the point man for trying to defend the climategate scandal. In that defense, he actually argued that the Freedom of Information Act should not apply to requests made by right-wingers.

So there you have it:

● Right wingers should not be allowed information on what the government is doing. The law should only work for liberals.

● Climate change critics should be tracked and their homes burned.

● Obama should suspend democracy to enforce global warming enthusiasts' goals.

● And murder, forced abortion, forced sterilization and eco-terrorism are all valid tools for the government to use in helping the global warming enthusiasts achieve their fetishistic goals.

So much for it only happening in Nazi Germany. Now that I think about it. . . maybe we should start burning their houses down?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Economist: Religious Jews Are The Real Evil

Sometimes The Economist has to be read to be believed. In December, The Economist began worrying for the first time that things weren’t going right in Egypt because “inexplicably” some religious types were winning the elections. How bad are these religious types? Almost as bad as ultra-Orthodox Jews. . . the worst of the worst.

When the Arab Spring hit Egypt, there were plenty of reasons to hope the country would move in the right direction. Egypt had a history of religious tolerance before the modern era. The country is relatively modern. The country has a huge Christian population who would presumably be a moderating force. The Army was definitely a moderating force. And the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly forsworn violence and any intention of imposing strict Sharia law on the people. It seemed very possible Egypt could become a Turkish-style moderate-Islamic democracy.

But there were also plenty of reasons to believe things would go wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood’s political history is more radical than they admit. Islam would not see subjugating a Christian population as much of a moral dilemma, see e.g. anywhere in the Middle East, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc. And there is another group, the Salafists, who are openly pushing for a Taliban-like puritanical interpretation of Islam to become the law of the land.

People with brains saw the potential for good in this and the potential for bad, and they waited to see how the middle class and youth would respond. Idiots, i.e. liberals like The Economist, saw only the good parts.

With the first round of the elections in the books, the bad appears to be winning. The Muslim Brotherhood have become the big winners with 46%. Even worse, the Salafists got 24%. The question now is whether the Brotherhood will team with the Salafists, which they originally promised they wouldn’t. That will decide Egypt’s future.

And now that things appear to be going wrong, liberals are shocked to discover there was ever a potential for bad. Who knew there were Muslims who really meant it when they said they want to stop women from driving, going to school, and fondling vegetables, when they said they want to murder Christians who won’t convert, and when they said they want to go to war with Israel? Who could have known this, whined The Economist when it confessed to being misled by all the Egyptian Facebook pages that seemed so hopeful and so liberal.

Anyway, The Economist is now trying to save face by equating the Salafists with ultra-orthodox Jews. Indeed, according to The Economist religious Jews are just like the Muslim Brotherhood and the ultra-orthodox are just like the Salafists. Let’s compare:

● Religious Jews are “carving out no-go areas for the authorities with their own legal and morality police.”

Yep, that’s just completely evil. It’s kind of like how it’s a death sentence for non-Muslims to be in places like Mecca and Medina and how Jews aren’t allowed in Saudi Arabia and how the Muslims in places like Sudan and Ethiopia slaughtered their Jewish and Christian neighbors. Yeah, those imaginary no-go areas are about as bad as it can get.

● Religious Jews are “using their power as parliamentary kingmakers [and] religious Jews are the state.”

Oh, so they’ve imposed Torah law and Rabbis select political leaders now? Oh wait, no, that still only happens in Muslim countries.

● “The hotter-headed religious soldiers boycott military pageants at which women perform,” . . . “Municipalities cancel concerts with female artists or insist that they fully cover their bodies and remove advertising of even modestly-clad women from streets and buses.” . . . and “Hillary Clinton recently said she was worried that women’s rights in Israel were being eroded.”

Wow, if Hillary says it, then it must true. Of course, boycotting parades and demanding that scantily-clad women be covered up isn’t quite the same as requiring women to wear veils head to toe, sentencing women to be stoned for having sexy eyes, attacking male doctors who try to help women, sentencing women to death for adultery or sorcery or being raped, allowing instant divorce by husbands, not letting women vote, hold office, drive, work, go to the same churches, go to school, etc. etc. But yeah, I TOTALLY see how you could equate these things.

● “In ultra-Orthodox suburbs of Tel Aviv, women, like their Saudi counterparts, do not drive.”

Of course, in Israel, it’s a choice. In Saudi Arabia, it’s a law and women drivers get a death sentence. Also, it’s not just Saudi Arabia. It’s all over the Gulf and spreading.

● “Religious Jews tend to be more dismissive of Arabs than their secular compatriots.”

Yep, that’s bad. There’s nothing worse than being dismissive. . . like how the left is dismissive of Christians. Of course, Muslims aren’t really dismissive of Jews so much as “murderous of.” Tomato... tomato I guess.

● “Polls suggest that a high percentage of religious Jews would deny non-Jews the vote.”

But they can vote. Show me a Muslim country where non-Muslims can vote? In fact, in several Muslim countries (e.g. Pakistan) being a Jew or Christian gets you a death sentence.

Oh, those evil Jews! Won’t someone rid us of their terror?!

This is shameful, but it’s also par for the course these days among liberal journalists for whom anti-Semitism and stupidity are tools of the trade. They casually mix anti-Semitism with their bizarre language of equivalency to come up with stunning comparisons like this, where a blood thirsty murderer can be equated to someone shushing you at a theater. Nice work Economist.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

AP Top 10: Politicized News

The AP has put out their Top 10 news stories of 2011. As usual, they’ve politicized the list and they aren’t good at separating the pointless from the significant. Here’s their list followed by a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012.

No. 1. The killing of Osama Bin Laden. Yawn. Let’s be honest. Osama meant nothing by this point. He wasn’t giving orders and he inspired no one. Subsequent events have shown his death changed nothing in the war on terror. I’m glad he’s dead, but he doesn’t belong atop this list.

No. 2. Japanese Disaster. Earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown, 20,000 people dead, $218 billion in damage, 100,000 homeless. This one deserves to be on the list. It’s too bad so many Hollywood types thought this was a good time to crack racist anti-Japanese jokes.

No. 3. The Arab Spring. This one probably deserves to be the top story. Even The Economist is now worried that the thing “no one could have possibly foreseen” is happening, i.e. radical Islam taking power. Expect this one to cause a lot of carnage in the coming years.

No. 4. EU Crisis. Eh. Reality doesn’t quit. When you create a currency that anyone can print and you have no way to keep people from running up the bills, it’s only a matter of time before it all blows up. The real story would be if the Europeans learn anything from this.

No. 5. US Economy. Huh? They actually identify this as our economy growing and “unemployment rate finally dipping below 9 percent.” Don’t make me laugh. This recession will get worse before it gets better. Seasonal Christmas hiring won’t change that.

No. 6. Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal. If you care about Penn State, sure. But shouldn’t the bigger story be the recent arrests of Hollywood pedophiles? Oh that’s right, only some pedophiles are bad.

No. 7. Gadhafi Toppled. Wasn’t this part of the Arab Spring? Also, riddle me this: so what? Seriously, how does this change the world?

No. 8. Fiscal Showdowns In Congress. Kabuki theater at best.

No. 9. OWS. Morons crapping in the streets. More theater.

No. 10. Gabrielle Giffords Shot. Yeah, because this changed everything. Some crazed leftist shoots Giffords and the left blames Sarah Palin. The left calls for a “change in tone” while famous leftists joke about killing Palin and her family. Been there, done that.


Notice how they put this list together. First, they went liberal. Most of these are meant to aggrandize Lord Obama’s policies: Obama’s triumph over villains bin Laden and Gadhafi, Obama finally taming the economy, and the masses showing support for Obama through OWS. Several of the rest are meant to explain away Obama’s failures: the evil Congress that can’t fix the budget, the Japanese disaster that blasted our economy, and the murderous right-wing opposition that tried to kill Giffords and is determined to stop Obama. Of course, NONE of that is true, but truth doesn’t matter to leftist. They only care that it can be spun to make Obama look good or explain his failures. This is Obama’s campaign resume brought to you by the AP.

But even beyond helping Obama, look at the ludicrousness of this list. This entire list is aspirational, not based in reality. They hoped killing bin Laden would change the world. They hoped the Arab Spring and killing Gadhafi would bring peace to the Middle East. They hoped the Giffords shooting would end America’s love of guns. They hope the economy has turned around. They hope OWS finally means something.

And isn’t it interesting they ignored the elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell”? I guess that didn’t turn out to be so popular with the public. They ignored the tornadoes across the Midwest and Southeast. Why? Because Obama never bothered to help those people because they don’t vote for him. They ignored Solyndra and MF Global and Fast and Furious. They ignored the Pelosi financial scandals and the retirements of dozens of Democrats. They ignored the attempt to force a union on Boeing. They ignored the left’s failure to recall Wisconsin Republicans. They ignored Climategate 2 and a bevy of global warming scandals. They ignored the courts striking down ObamaCare. . . something we were assured only lunatics could think would happen.

Gee, I wonder why?

Anyway, here’s a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012:

1. Tebow wins Super Bowl
2. Obama loses in landslide
3. Republicans capture 58 seats in the Senate
4. First case of cannibalism at OWS occurs in NYC
5. Egypt invades Libya
6. Mysterious explosion at Iranian nuclear plant
7. Germany quits the Euro
8. ????

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

More Proof That Liberals Are Insane

Liberalism truly is a mental condition. Time and again, liberal policies lead to disaster and yet liberals absolutely refuse to see that. If at first you don’t succeed, just keep doing the same thing over and over until you get a different result. . . and don’t you dare try to fix any problems that may arise. Consider these examples.

1. Food Stamps For Rich College Kids Liberals believe in food stamps as a way to help poor people who “don’t earn enough to survive.” So you would assume liberals would want to stop rich and middle class moochers from exploiting the food stamp program? Apparently not.

Unlike other states, Michigan allows college kids to get food stamps. Federal law forbids this, but Michigan liberals got around that by classifying college as an “employment training program.” They also check eligibility for food stamps on the basis of income only without regard to assets. Hence, someone with a ton of money but no actual income can qualify for food stamps. . . someone like Leroy Fick, who won the state lottery but remained on food stamps.

Michigan is now changing its rules. College kids can now only get food stamps if they are single mothers or if they work more than 20 hours per week and still fall within income restrictions (assets will be considered as well). This change will kick 30,000 college kids off the program and save the state $75 million per year in food stamps.

Liberals should be thrilled. These middle class to rich moochers living comfortably on parental support and federal student loans, most of whom have better job prospects upon graduation than 90% of taxpayers, were robbing taxpayers (including “the working poor”) and draining the system, which prevented the money from reaching people who really needed it. But liberals aren’t outraged at the moochers, they’re outraged at the conservative governor who has made the change. Their reasoning? A change in the law to prevent the rich from taking money meant for the poor “will be unfair to the poor.”

Stupidity or insanity?

2. Stimulus Failure (redux): The evidence is indisputable that government spending to boost an economy in the short term is a disaster. I do believe careful spending in certain types of infrastructure can lead to long term growth. For example, the creation of a highway or getting electricity to people can create a wealth of opportunities as consumers and businesses make use of those services to reach each other. But you can’t boost an economy just by hiring people to build something.

History has shown this over and over. In fact, the biggest ignored lesson of the Great Depression came from FDR’s own Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, who wrote this in his diary about their efforts to stem the recession:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . [A]fter eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . and an enormous debt to boot!”

Sound familiar? Now the Democrats want to go for another stimulus bill. . . a fifth under Obama. The others all failed, yet they think this one will work. That’s Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: repeating the same action over and over, but expecting a different result. Hence, liberals are insane.

3. CAFE Standards Obama just introduced new fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) for trucks. Raising CAFE standards makes cars more expensive, driving down demand and keeping poor people in older, less-safe vehicles longer. What’s more, the one type of vehicle in which American car companies still dominate is the truck. This will hurt Detroit. I guess Obama’s slogan for 2012 will be, “The GM bailout was so successful, I want to repeat it in 2014!”

4. Obama Strong Warlord The last Democrat with any sense of how to win a war was Harry Truman, and he seemed to lose that by the time Korea came along. Since that time, the Democrats have become a party of pacifists, cowards and military incompetents. Obama looks to continue this ignoble tradition by tucking his tail in Afghanistan and Libya. But the Democrats want to portray him as a big tough killer. What to do? What to do?

Oh, I know. Let’s have Hollywood make a movie about Obama’s dithering over the killing of Osama bin Laden to prove his resolve of steal (hmm, is that spelled right?).

Here’s the catch. When Obama was thumping his chest after the military killed bin Laden, he got all of a three point bounce, which vanished again before the first shark took a bite out of bin Laden’s body. Obama got no bounce form running away in Iraq or cowering before Iran or Honduras. He got no bounce from the surge in Afghanistan. He got a negative bounce from bombing Libya. And Americans have stayed away in droves from every war film Hollywood has produced about the war on terror. Hmmm. So what makes liberals think this will help the man of steal? Insanity.

5. London Violence London police killed some gangbanger. According to liberals, it is outrageous that anyone should ever be killed and violence is unacceptable. So what do liberals do to protest? They start rioting in London, burning buses with people in them, beating people with baseball bats, etc. In other words, they have turned to massive, random violence to protest a single instance of probably justified violence. Nice.

As an "interesting" aside -- at least it will be interesting for most liberals (possibly even mind-boggling) -- the rioting stopped in London once the police threatened to use rubber bullets. The rioters moved on to other cities at that point. As a further aside, they don't riot in my neighborhood because we don't waste our time with rubber bullets.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Little Liberal(s) Who Cried Hostage

My next article is up at Big Hollywood! Go take a look: (Linky, Linky)! (It's at the film site too.)

What is it with Democrats and hostages? Apparently, Democrats aren't happy unless Americans are being held hostage. In fact, they've been using the word "hostage taker" like it's some kind of talking point. Imagine that. And these are the same people who whined about needing a new tone in politics after Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Observe.

When Giffords was shot in January of this year, Obama finally spoke somewhat eloquently (at least in part). Here is what he read from TOTUS:

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

I, for one, was glad to hear the Democrats planned to change their ways. Yep no more threats to kill Bush or Palin's family (LINK). So how did they do with this new tone? Not so well. Just look at the last couple days . . see if you can spot the pattern:

● August 3, 2011: Democrats attack the Republicans over the FAA partial shutdown using the words “hostage taking” repeatedly.

● Barbara Boxer: “This is a made-up crisis. This is government by hostage taking.”
● Steny Hoyer: “Unfortunately, Republicans continue to practice the politics of confrontation and hostage taking.”
● Chuck Schumer: “The issue is not essential air service, it’s not even a labor issue. It’s the issue of hostage taking.”
● Harry Reid: “I again say, Speaker Boehner, stop this nonsense.”

I guess Harry didn’t get the memo.

● August 1, 2011: Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Doyle referred to the Tea Party as “a small group of terrorists [who] have made it impossible to spend any money.” Slow Joe Biden agreed: “They have acted like terrorists.” Yes el Guapo. . . a plethora of terrorists.

● August 1, 2011: Unhinged Chris “The Tingler” Matthews said this about the debt ceiling negotiations:

“Why did Obama let this develop for six months. . . this drum roll of the Republicans saying, ‘We’ve got the baby. You don’t get the baby back unless you pay us?’ Why do you let the other side have the baby, to use kidnapping terms?”

So Republicans are child kidnappers? Earlier in the day, The Tingle said that Obama should have said: “[I will accept] no game playing, no hostage-taking, no terrorizing this country with the debt ceiling. I'm not going to negotiate with you guys.” Then he said: “We elected President Obama, the American people, but we're stuck with Bush's economic policies because they keep hostage-taking to keep Bush in power.”

I guess the Democrats were hostage taking for Bush when they had the filibuster proof Senate?

This, by the way, is only the latest instance where The Tingle has become unhinged. On July 5, 2011, The Tingle said that the GOP had become terrorists: “Well, the GOP has become the Wahhabis of American government, willing to risk bringing down the whole country in the service of their anti-tax ideology.”

And here I thought we had nothing to fear from Islam?

● July 29, 2011: The Democratic herd was at it before the budget deal:

● Steny Hoyer: “The Republicans are holding hostage the credit of the United States of America.”
● Debbie Schultz: “. . . our Republican colleagues to hold our economy hostage.”
● Harry Reid: “The Republican Party is holding our economy hostage.”
● Louise Slaughter: “. . . hold the debt ceiling hostage.”
● Chuck Schumer: “. . . hold America hostage.”
● Sheldon Whitehouse: “. . . one party is holding the country hostage.”
● John Olver: “. . . the debt limit has never before been held hostage.”
● Barbara Lee: “. . . Republicans are holding our economy hostage.”
● Earl Blumenauer: “. . . willing to take hostage the debt ceiling.”
● Jason Altmire: “Stop holding America’s credit rating hostage.”
● Rosa DeLauro: “The Republican majority continues to hold the American economy hostage.”
● Chris Van Hollen: “Let’s not hold the entire American economy hostage.”
● John Larson: “. . . ideological hostage situation.”
● Lloyd Doggett: “The only belt they’re really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages.”
● James Clyburn: “. . . holding the American economy hostage.”
● Jesse Jackass Jr.: “This president is being treated differently! No other president has been stuck up, shook down, or held hostage!” Right... it’s racist hostage taking! Wooo, that’s much worse.

I guess they swapped the Donkey for a Parrot. But seriously, who looks more like a hostage taker:


Ran Paul, who needs to stay somewhat civil lest he be accused of being a “hateful hostage taking” responded thusly: “With the president holding the American economy hostage, I would prefer to think of myself as a freedom fighter.”

Personally, I see the Democrats more as a gang of rapists. So a little hostage taking is probably justified to stop them.

Let us continue. . .

● July 31, 2011: The New York Times wrote (in crayon):

There is little to like about the tentative agreement between Congressional leaders and the White House except that it happened at all. The deal would avert a catastrophic government default . . The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists.

And none of this is new:

● Here is what Obama himself has read from TOTUS:

● December 12, 2010: “I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed.”

"Unless"? Don’t you usually want to negotiation before they harm the hostage? I can see Hostage Negotiator Obama now: “We won’t talk to you unless you harm some hostages. . . go ahead. . . wing a few.”

● September 8, 2010: “So let me be clear to Mr. Boehner and everyone else: we should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer.”

There was also an article I can’t find anymore which included a ton of references by Obama to hostage taking. It seems that every time one of his policies isn’t agreed to immediately, the baby starts whining about hostage taking. It kind of makes you wonder where he went to Madras doesn’t it?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Riot Like An Egyptian

Egypt is dominating the news these days, for good reason. Egypt lies at a strategically key location, with much of the world’s trade still passing through the Suez Canal. It shares a border with Israel. It remains a key battlefront in the war between secularists and fundamentalist Islam. And whether we like it or not, we are deeply involved in what is going on in Egypt. Here’s your primer on Egypt.

1. A Brief History. The current problems with Egypt began when General Muhammad Naguib overthrew British puppet King Farouk and declared a Republic in 1953. At that point, many Egyptians were hoping for democratic rule, but the army had other plans. Naguib was forced to resign the following year by Gamal Abdel Nasser, who tossed out the British and allied Egypt with the Soviet Union, introducing socialism. His replacement, Anwar Sadat expelled the Soviets in 1972 and allied Egypt with the United States, but he also imposed a policy of violently repressing all opposition. Sadat was assassinated in 1981, after entering into a peace treaty with Israel. His vice president, General Hosni Mubarak, took over and remains in charge until now.

In the last few years, Mubarak began losing popular support. Although a rich country, Egypt’s wealth is held by a few well-connected allies of Mubarak, with most of the population being unemployed and living in abject poverty. Political opponents are routinely jailed, and Mubarak has held numerous fake elections, often running unopposed after declaring opposing political parties illegal. He is the classic Middle Eastern strongman, relying on the military and the secret police to maintain his rule.

On January 14th of this year, the people of Tunisia rose up and overthrew their own strongman, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. The surprising success of this revolution (caveat “success” in that no new government has yet been established), triggered the imaginations of the Arab world. When Egyptians heard of this, they took to the streets. Look for Jordan to be next.

2. Why Egypt Matters. Egypt matters to the United States for several reasons. First, the Suez Canal sits in Egypt. Much of the world’s trade travels through it. Secondly, Egypt borders on Israel, and has been an important player in trying to keep arms out of the hands of the Palestinians. Third, Egypt is the home of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group that basically spawned modern Islamic terrorism. This last point is particularly important. If Egypt becomes like Taliban-Afghanistan, war between Egypt and Israel will be inevitable, and we will be drawn in. Moreover, the 20% of the population who are Coptic Christians may find themselves in the middle of a genocide, just as the Christians in Sudan found themselves.

3. What Are The Alternatives. Right now, the alternatives are the problem.

1. Mubarak could stay, though I think that’s impossible, and would just put off the inevitable. He just appointed a successor after refusing to do so for years, in the hopes of staving off the protestors. The successor, Omar Suleiman, runs the intelligence service. Prior to this, Mubarak was believed to have been planning to appoint his son, who has now fled the country. But this has not satisfied the protestors and it’s unlikely anyone Mubarak chooses will be allowed to stay in power.

2. The West is hoping the government voluntarily hands over power to Mohammed Elbaradei, who they stupidly believe to be a Western-style democrat waiting to happen. You might remember Elbaradei as the head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, where he routinely claimed that Iran was not building nuclear weapons. He also lobbied against sanctions and demanded that if Iran could not have nuclear weapons, then Israel should be forced to give theirs up as well.

3. Elbaradei is backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, who seek to convert Egypt into an Islamic regime; although he’s not a member, Elbaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood have apparently cut some sort of deal. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is now active in 80 countries around the world, is the root of Islamic terrorism today. Their creed is: “God is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

Unfortunately, they have been very good at lobbying and many Western patsies, including Bush Administration and Obama Administration people, have fallen for the line that the Muslim Brotherhood is a peaceful group. They have even claimed that somehow their “moderation” has made them the enemies of “extremists” like al Qaeda. The line pushed most often by their patsies is “they aren’t dangerous.” Expect to hear a lot of that until this issue is over.

4. A competing group is called the Kifaya movement, which is supposed to be a group of intellectuals who are demanding “liberal, democracy.” That sounds good, except this group is anti-Semitic and anti-American. They were formed as a protest movement against Israel’s handling of the Palestinians, and they have since protested both Israel and America’s involvement in the Middle East. In 2006, they campaigned to get a million Egyptians to sign a petition demanding that Egypt renounce its peace treaty with Israel.

Ultimately, however, I think none of these groups matter. The army will decide who runs the country. The problem with the Army is their increasingly horrible relations with the US. Because of the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, the United States has been providing billions of dollars in aid each year to Egypt and the Egyptian military. As a matter of official policy, the American and Egyptian militaries are very friendly and work together on most issues. However, as was revealed in diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks, the reality is quite different. Neither military trusts the other and the Egyptians have refused American entreaties to reform, clean up corruption, and refocus on fighting terrorism. Instead, the Egyptian military continues to consider Israel its primary enemy, and joint operations and contacts between the Egyptians and the Americans have all but stopped.

4. Why Think The Army Will Win?. Right now we are seeing all kinds of signs the Army is planning to replace Mubarak. First, when the protests began, the Army let the police be overwhelmed. They did not step in to stop the looting or killing initially. This, smartly, turned the public against both the protestors (who even looted museums) and the police, and shook Mubarak’s regime. When Mubarak called out the secret police, and they began shooting at protestors, the Army sent tanks to stand between the two groups, which again makes them public heroes. When the violence finally died down, the Army came out in force, but has refused to suppress the crowds or enforce a curfew. This puts the Army firmly in the position of being the only institution that appears to have remained neutral, pro-public and nonviolent. That gives the Army credibility, which carries with it the ability to play kingmaker, especially since the Army holds all the levers of power in the country.

If I’m reading this correctly, look for the Army to replace Mubarak sometime this week, probably with a national government of reconciliation, which is likely to be little more than a puppet government. I think the model being pursued here is that of the Turkish governments of the 1950s - 1980s. If I’m right, this may actually turn out to be a good thing, provided they (1) gain sufficient popular support to keep their legitimacy, (2) they manage to keep the Islamic fundamentalists from gaining influence, and (3) they work to reform the country to make it more stable and democratic.

5. American Involvement. Finally, here’s our involvement. When this first happened, there didn’t appear to be an American link, except that we’ve been pouring money into Egypt since the 1970s. However, the other day a handful of diplomatic cables were released by Wikileaks which show the US State Department discussing a plan with dissidents in 2008 to throw out the Mubarak government in 2011. There is no evidence yet that the US took any steps in that regard, except lobbying Mubarak to release dissidents from prison. But if more comes to light, this could put us very deeply into this.

And if this is true, it’s highly stupid to start a revolution without a plan to put something better in place, which we clearly don’t have.

Obama’s role in all of this is somewhat suspect. When the crisis hit, Obama tried to walk the line between supporting both sides. But as it became clearer the protestors are likely to win, Obama’s people started putting out word that Obama was instrumental in causing this -- something for which there is no evidence. Hillary Clinton has now all but called for the removal of Mubarak, long after it’s clear he will be leaving -- though the "all but" part has angered Elbaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, Obama's actions seems like front-running now and may be too little too late, no matter who ultimately prevails.

Also, politically, Obama stands to gain nothing but grief no matter how this turns out -- so don't expect him to show a lot of nerve. Americans care little for overseas events and care even less for this part of the world. Thus, even if Egypt turns out rainbows and unicorns, this is unlikely to impress American voters. But if things turn ugly, people will remember Obama’s newest claims of all-but causing this revolution.

Questions?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Ban Free Speech, Are You Kidding?

There have been many proposed responses to the Giffords shooting. Some of them are dumber than others, but all are stupid, especially the idea that we should be limiting freedom of speech. That's a horrible idea.

Here are few of the proposed responses to the Giffords shooting:

• Encase the entire House and Senate floor with Plexiglass to stop tourists from throwing something at the Congress (and presumably keep Congress from throwing poop back). ~Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.

How does a shooting at a grocery store lead to the idea that we need to protect the Congress floor from tourists. . . the same tourists who are already searched before they enter the building? There is no logic here. And if this sounds like the Cone of Silence to you or the Ape House at the San Diego Zoo, then you’re smarter than Dan Burton.

• Ban the carrying of a firearm within 1,000 feet of any “high-profile” public officials. ~Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.

For starters, these “high-profile public officials” move around. Are you seriously going to arrest people who have a right to carry a gun the moment a Congresscritter hops on a bus with them? Secondly, if someone wants to kill a Congresscritter, they aren’t going to care about a 1,000 feet gun-ban zone. By definition, laws do not deter these people. All this will do is disarm those who might save the Congresscritter.

• The federal government should impose tougher drug laws because the Tucson shooter smoked pot. ~David Frum, Hack

Let me repeat, people who want to assassinate politicians do not care about the law. Moreover, pot hardly inspires people to violence. To the contrary, it inspires laziness and the munchies. Poor thinking Dave. Dave’s not home man.

• Use the Federal Communication Commission to force Rush Limbaugh off the air. ~Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.

Right, because political oppression and silencing the opposition keeps paranoids from deciding to kill people, and if we can just force people to stop disagreeing it would be a wonderful world.

• Make it illegal to say things that might be considered ‘threatening’ about lawmakers. ~Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa.

Down with free speech! Ok, let's hit this issue of curtailing free speech straight up:

First, the Constitution forbids it, thank God. End of argument.

Secondly, what gives anyone the right to decide what another may say or think? And if we’re going to play that game, what makes you think you’re going to get to decide what it is that everyone else says or thinks?

Third, how does it make any sense to limit free speech when there’s no evidence that any speech incited this guy to do the shooting? He’s a nut. He shot her because he didn’t like the answer she gave to a nonsense question he asked in 2007.

Fourth, where do we draw the line? The New York Times drew a target on Peyton Manning. Was that hate speech? Should we just ban the symbol or also the word “target” or both? Or should we only ban it when it’s used against a person, as in “he’s the target of this investigation”? Do we only ban words that involve shooting? What about words that involve blowing things up? What about words that imply stabbings? Or beatings? Or do we ban beating words only when they include a hint of death? Do we ban “beat him within an inch of his life” or just “beat him to death”? What about words that have become euphemisms? “Take out” usually refers to Chinese food, but we should probably ban that in case it gets used to mean a person. What about “I hate”? That’s dehumanizing and it implies feelings of violence and aggression, should we ban that?

What about “f*ck the cops?” That clearly implies a threat of violence against the police. So do we ban rap music? What about films that inspire violence? A film about an assassination or a bombing could set the unstable off. So could a Discovery Channel show about assassinations, now that I think about it. And if we are going to ban movie violence, how do we decide which kind of movie violence will inspire violence? How about a slap in a romantic comedy? What about cartoon violence? What if the next killer kills because a non-violent cartoon dog told him too? Do we ban cartoon dogs? What about cartoon cats? John Hinckley wanted to get Jodi Foster’s attention, should we ban anyone who can get the attention of a crazy person? Maybe Letterman should be taken off the air, he has a stalker, so there must be something about him that inspires crazy people -- that could cause the unstable to kill someone.

Where do we stop?

Fifth and finally, why are we even drawing lines at all? There are 308 million Americans who did nothing wrong this last weekend, so why are we going to punish them by forcing them to change the way they think and speak and act, by neutering their culture and language, by talking away their entertainment and their rights, just because of the actions of one insane person? I’m sure someone drove drunk too, should be ban cars or alcohol?

If we go down that road, aren't we eventually going to ban everything?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why The Vitriol?

For years now, it’s been apparent the modern left is driven by hate. In fact, it’s ingrained in the left’s ideology, which is entirely premised on taking from people it considers evil or undeserving. But their outpouring of hate in the past few days has been breathtaking. So why is the left so angry about this? There are several explanations for the left’s current vitriol and, as you might expect, the answer likely involves a combination of each factor. Let’s consider the possibilities:

Reason One: Exploitation Plain and Simple.

When Rahm Emanuel said “never let a good crisis go to waste,” he was saying something that has been at the core of leftist thinking for decades. The left puts little value on human life and no value of human dignity (their self-serving protestations to the contrary notwithstanding). Indeed, their entire political philosophy is based on the idea that society is more important than the life, rights, or dignity of any individual, and that we are all expendable for the greater good, i.e. their agenda. Add in other leftist ideas like the Black Panther slogan, “by any means necessary,” and you have a philosophy that will happily exploit any tragedy to further their political agenda. Hence, it’s been no surprise that gun control groups began pushing legislation within minutes of the shooting, that leftists took to the net and the airways immediately to slander their enemies (even after they should have known better), or that Democrats would use this in fundraisers before the bodies are even cold.

This is who the left is, and people need to realize that. The vitriol is all just part of the show. The left understands that its recent sales job to the public about the Tea Party being a bunch of klansmen fell on deaf ears. So now they are trying to raise the volume and intensity of the debate in the hopes that the public abandons the Tea Party.

Reason Two: Guilt Transference.

A second possible explanation involves psychology. One of the most common behaviors of the left over recent years has been that they routinely deny their own actions, and then they accuse others of the very things they pretend they have not done. In psychological terms, this is called transference, and it’s a defense mechanism that lets the individual avoid the responsibility for their own actions. You see this used in Hollywood when a gay-bashing character turns out to actually be gay, but is unwilling to admit it to themselves. It’s the same idea here:

At some level, the left must be aware that it engages almost constantly in hateful rhetoric. It also knows that this is wrong. To avoid the logical conclusion that, therefore, it is guilty of wrongful behavior, the left transfers this behavior onto the right by accusing the right of acting in the way that the left actually acts. This helps leftists cleanse their consciences. The stronger the guilt that must be cleansed, the strong the attack. Over the past 8-10 years, the left has been guilty of an incredibly high level of hateful rhetoric. Hence, the incredibly high level of vitriol in their current attack.

Reason Three: Fear.

The next possible explanation involves fear. The left has for decades engaged in guerilla tactics. This involves smearing their opponents, disrupting political events, spreading lies to trick the “ignorant masses,” and electoral fraud. This also includes making life incredibly unpleasant for people who oppose them.

That has taken the form of shouting down people who dare oppose them (politicians or otherwise), protesting at their homes or businesses, seeking to have their opponents fired or taken off the air, and using threats or implied threats to scare their opponents. Indeed, anyone who paid attention to the Townhall meetings saw this when union thugs intimidated speakers with violence. Similarly, most right-wing radio personalities and writers routinely receive death threats. Disruptions of political speeches and college commencement speeches often include death threats, bomb threats, physical attacks, threats against the speaker’s children, and other suggestions of violence.

But here’s the thing. This has been 100% the domain of the left. In other words, they’ve been getting away with it consequence free.

If the left honestly believes this shooter came from the right, their vitriol could indicate that they are terrified that this could (or will) become a trend. Indeed, with the right already adopting many of their other tactics, like turning out to protest en masse or giving the Code Pink treatment to the reading of the Constitution, this could easily be evidence that the right is about to adopt the same guerilla tactics. This would a terrifying prospect for the left as they would now begin to face personal danger for their political views. Hence, the vitriol is in direct response to their fear.

Reason Four: Lashing Out.

Finally, we come to what appears to be the main reason: the left feel personally betrayed by America, and this vitriol is them lashing out.

For years, there have been growing hints of hate boiling over on the left. And when I say hate, I mean it. People use the term "hate" far too lightly, just as they misuse other words. Real hate almost can't be described except with the word "hate." It's fiery, it's nasty, it's violent, it's irrational.

As victimology took hold on the left, the hate followed. Blacks who subscribe to victimology hate whites. Feminists hate men and housewives. Socialists hate capitalists and the rich. Etc. And when I say “hate,” I don't mean "dislike." I mean when you get these people started, they end up foaming at the mouth saying things that often end with them trying to find the nastiest way to wish some dead.

Then Bush came along and gave them something specific to focus their hate upon. And hate they did -- very publicly. Indeed, there was so much open hate that it soon became acceptable in leftist circles to talk about assassinating Bush or Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Delay, or Bill O’Reilly (later add Palin and Beck).

Then 2008 happened and suddenly leftists thought the world had changed. The clouds opened up, a rainbow appeared, and America finally accepted them. But things went wrong almost immediately. They got nothing. And at the first opportunity, the public thoroughly repudiated them (probably for several generations at least). Suddenly, what seemed like a dream come true victory became a humiliating defeat that indicated to them that they would never succeed in America.

So now it’s January 2011. You’ve got years of boiling hate, which reached a level where expressing it in its vilest form has become acceptable. You’ve got a crushing defeat inflicted upon these self-defined enlightened leftists by a public that they see as ignorant, and a fear that they are doomed to perpetual failure because that same public will never accept them. That is a recipe for an epic tantrum. Suddenly, you have this shooting and an opportunity to focus that tantrum on one thing. In one fell swoop, they could unleash all their hatred on the ignorant public that they blame for their failure and they could target the various bogeymen and bogeywomen they’ve come to despise over the past couple years. Hence, the vitriol.

It’s possible that some are hoping that by spewing forth, they might encourage other unstable people to assassinate their bogeymen, but for the most part I think this vitriol is the result of a personal desire by most on the left to “get even” with the ignorant public that shattered their dreams and the evil conservatives who made that happen.

Thoughts?


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Leftist Hate Speech

The left are liars and hypocrites. No surprises there. But the last couple days have been extreme, even for them. I'll deal with the reason they've flipped out tomorrow morning, so as not to clutter this post. In the meantime, today I’ve collected some information they won't like: examples of leftist hate. I apologize in advance for the vile language (NSFW), but I will be quoting lots of leftists.

1. The Shooter Is A Leftist

Before we dig into leftist hate, let me point out that this shooter was by no means a right-winger. All the evidence puts him firmly on the left:

● The shooter’s favorite books include The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and The Republic, which are all leftist books.

● He's a 9/11 truther.

● He was an intolerant atheist who wrote a diatribe against the military handing out miniature Bibles to recruits.

● Classmate Caitie Parker, who knew him in high school and college and was in a band with him, has stated: “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.”

● His favorite video on YouTube was someone burning the American flag.

None of these are consistent with him being a right-winger. Indeed, the only thing consistent with him being on the modern right is vague demands about abandoning the dollar because it is not backed by gold, BUT he then talks about everyone making their own currency -- which is more akin to Marxist thinking, which disdains currency as a tool of oppression.

2. The Left/Media Ignore The Truth So They Can Attack

Despite this evidence coming out fairly quickly, the left and their friends in the MSM jumped right out and claimed it was hateful right wing rhetoric that was to blame. Here are some samples of their claims (note the emphasis on boogeywoman Sarah Palin):

● Markos Moulitsas, founder of the DailyKos, sent the following tweet: “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.”

● New Jersey Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell said: “There’s an aura of hate and elected politicians feed it, certain people on Fox News feed it.”

● Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) specifically blamed the Tea Party for turning our political discourse “toxic” and making it so that “if you’re an opponent, you’re a deadly enemy.” He then accused them of “threatening our form of government.” And he said that “Ms. Palin needs to look at her own behavior, and if she wants to help the public discourse, the best thing she could do is to keep quiet.”

● Keith Olbermann compared the shooter to Glenn Beck and called on him to apologize.

● Paul Krugman claimed that Rush, Beck and Palin were to blame.

● CBS’s Nancy Cordes, CNN’s Jessica Yellin, Today’s Kelly O’Donnell and ABC’s David Wright all blamed Palin’s “cross hairs campaign” for causing this.

● The New York Times wrote a piece that actually lets liberals speculate that the shooter was motivated by specific militia magazines, even after they confirmed that he was never a subscriber to any of these. And interestingly, when they describe the shooter in this piece, they "somehow" fail to mention any of the evidence presented above, even though they mention every other known fact about him.

There are literally thousands of more examples, as this became a liberal talking point. Note the key themes, this was because of an "atmosphere of hate" created by the right.

3. The Real Purveyors of Hate Speech

So who really created this atmosphere of hate about which the left complains. With all their vast media resources, they've found one instance where Palin use a cross hairs image, which they have spun into possibly implying to the unstable that she was calling for an assassination (forget that leftist journalists routinely use warfare terminology to describe politics and many have used the cross hairs image themselves). Beside that, they have their opinions that Beck, Rush, etc. are spreading hate, but have been unable to produce any examples.

But what about leftist rhetoric? Bev informed us that the Huffers claimed the left had never said anything hateful. Roger Ebert likewise claimed that: "Were liberals angry about Bush? Yes. But liberals played by the rules." So is this correct or has the left conveniently developed collective amnesia? Let’s take a look.

Let’s start with some of things Ebert has said about Republicans:

● They have "a base it should be ashamed of."
● "The entire climate of paranoia and hate? Have these people always been there?"
● "Some of them may have been the victims of child abuse."
● "They are told to oppose, even hate, those who might be trying to help them."

So right-wingers are retarded, hateful, victims of child abuse? Nope, nothing hateful there. But Ebert's a piker when it comes to hate. For example, he never called for Bush's assassination, like so many other liberals did:

● Here is a collection of protest signs that threaten to kill Bush. Some of these signs include:

○ I’m here to kill Bush (Shoot Me)
○ Kill Bush Bomb His F___IN House
○ Save Mother Earth Kill Bush
○ Hang Bush For War Crimes
○ Bush Is The Disease Death Is The Cure
○ Bush the only Dope Worth Shooting

This link also shows dozens of other items like images of Bush being decapitated, a guillotine brought to a protest with Bush’s head in the basket, Bush being hung, Bush being burned in effigy, and an image of Bush being assassinated. Here are thousands of images of Bush as Hitler or Satan, and examples of t-shirts calling for Bush’s death, and wanted dead or alive posters.

● Comedian(?) Craig Kilborn showed a picture of Bush and ran a caption that read “snipers wanted.”

● John Kerry joked about killing Bush on Bill Maher's show. When asked if going to New Hampshire for his campaign "would kill two birds with one stone," Kerry responded: "I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone."

● And of course, in the middle of these nasty protests and Bushitler signs, Nancy Pelosi encouraged all of this when she called Bush “stupid” and said that “Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism.” Of course, when the protests went against her, then she suddenly demanded the government step in and investigate anyone involved with the protests.

Similarly, Democrat Rep. Robert Brady has now told CNN he will introduce legislation to make it a crime to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against federal officials. Funny how that wasn't an issue when it was Republicans being protested and attacked. . . like when bullets were fired at Eric Cantor's office or Bobby Jindal's campaign manager was attacked and her boyfriend's leg broken by protestors, or 7 out of 10 instances of violence at healthcare town halls were perpetrated by leftists.

But Bush hate is nowhere near the only hate the left has spewed of late. Tea Party hate is pathological on the left:

● In April, Joe Klein claimed that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin were guilty of sedition for opposing ObamaCare.

● Democratic House Whip James Clyburn accused the GOP of “aiding and abetting. . . terrorism.” Clyburn also described the Tea Party thusly: "It reminds me of that period in our history right after Reconstruction, when South Carolina had a black governor and the political gains were lost because of vigilantism, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan."

● Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) said this in October of Florida Republican Governor Rick Scott (a Tea Party candidate): "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."

● Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy said this of the Tea Party:

I know how the "tea party" people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their "Obama Plan White Slavery" signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.

● In November 2009, Dylan Rattigan of MSNBC was so upset that voters (i.e. Tea Party) were frustrating his leftist friends that he said this: "Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution? The answer obviously is yes, the only question is how to do it."

His guest then said that non-violent means were not effective for the left: “The american left has been very peaceful since the early ’60s and where has it gotten us?” And here is a quote from the guest’s book, “The Anti-American Manifesto”:

“A war is coming. At stake: our lives, the planet, freedom, living. The government, the corporations, and the extreme right are prepared to coalesce into an Axis of Evil. Are you going to fight back? Will you do whatever it takes, including taking up arms?

The millions of partisans who follow Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and right-wing televangelists happen to be the best-armed people around, and they despise just about everyone who doesn’t think and pray like them. . . . They will act to stop teenage sluts from getting abortions, teach niggers a lesson, and slaughter those spics, dots, and everyone else who doesn’t fit into their vision of what and who is right.”

● The Nation also calls for violence: “where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs?

And when it comes to radio personalities and political writers, the left really gets hateful. Ask yourself if you could ever imagine saying any of the following yourself or if you would accept your friends saying any of the following:

● Canadian columnist Antonia Zerbisias of the Toronto Star said this of Michelle Malkin: “Forget the Marxists. I wish the marksmen would take MichelleMalkin.” This same liberal often complains of other’s hate speech.

● How about some of the letters Michelle Malkin gets, like this:

○ You’re a sick BITCH. Are you aware that you almost causes the death of an elementary school teacher the other day with your bullshit. You are a disgrace to Black people. I’m sorry .That’s right . You’re not black. Is your husband a white man that works for the Insurance Cartel?

○ from Greg Diaz: times up you ugly motherfucker make sure sure your husband signs that policy bitch

● How about some of the letters Rush gets from liberals:

○ Rush Limbaugh is Cunt of the Day for not dying. So many people die each day, why does hateful cunt Limbaugh get to live?

○ RUSH LIMBAUGH WHY WONT YOU DIE?

○ rush deserves to die AND I HOPE HE BURNS IN HELL!!

● How about some liberal hate for Palin on Twitter:

○ Death 2 Palin family them retarded hillbillies take teabaggers w/ you hateful bitch

○ We cant expect gov to intervene we must shoot Gen. Palin on site be 4 her troops strike again!

○ one word racism choose sides plain and simply that bitch Palin launch an attack, she need 2 b shot on site!

○ @Palin360 you need 2 b assassinated soon we ll settle 4 one of the family if not u!

○ maybe it takes a murder or 2 2 get the point across take aim at radical TP members

○ Palin will b met with gunfire her or her family

○ @SarahStormRpt u need 2 be shot on site startin that racist Tp shit, all you all do is promo violence dont cry when some kill u basterds

○ her map w crosshair need to b put on her family she that bitch can die or a TP supporter

○ I cant wait till someone serious hurt that bitch Palin or one of her children soon she out of control!

○ Palin came 2 lower 48 2 start a civil divide this could b the moment of truth 4 americans 2 put her down

○ i encourage ppl 2 meet the TP wit the same acts of violence Palin instructs them 2 do we need 2 harass them 2 their racist graves

○ Damn violent teabaggers!

So when the left complains about hate speech, let’s be clear, they are talking about themselves. That’s why they are so familiar with it. They use it, they mean it. These are the ideological blood-brothers of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, and so many more -- hate and murder are deeply ensconced within their ideology.


(FYI: Patti has a link today that the left is using this shooting in their fund raisers already: LINK. I guess we shouldn't be surprised: "Never waste a crisis." -- Rahm Emanuel)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

The shooting of Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords has shocked the nation, and rightly so. And while we don’t know much yet, there are some things that are worth pointing out immediately. Here are some random thoughts:

First, it does not matter what Giffords politics are, the shooting of a public official is a tragedy. Murder is simply not acceptable in America for any reason, no matter who the person is, and we should all be outraged that anyone would take such actions.

Secondly, Speaker Boehner has issued the following statement:

“I am horrified by the senseless attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and members of her staff. An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society. Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, all who were injured, and their families. This is a sad day for our country."

I would like to second Boehner’s statement, as I’m sure we all would.

Third, let us be thankful that political murders are so rare in the United States. By comparison, in places like Mexico, the Philippines, and South America, political murders are common place, even at the highest level.

Finally, let us be careful about calling this “politically motivated.” Such claims imply the existence of a political movement that has adopted violence. Aside from a few environmental terrorist groups, there is no evidence of any group in America that currently has chosen violence as a way to get its “message” across. Indeed, almost without exception, the murder of politicians in America has been the work of insane individuals, and their actions should not be attributed to any political movement or ideology.

And while our television culture unfortunately demands immediate speculation about motive and blame, let us remember two things. The blame falls squarely on the man who pulled the trigger and any who helped, no one else. America does not do guilt by association. Secondly, the motives do not matter. This act was wrong no matter what the motives were, and we should not give publicity to the views of this killer nor should we give them any credence.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Representative Giffords and with our country.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...