Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Left’

An appeal to my reasonable conservative friends:

Important: if you are not reasonable and open-minded, don’t read any further. I’m not looking for “zots.” I’m looking for reasonable people who are serious about making the right choice. When I know I’ve chosen wisely, I feel at peace, without doubt in my mind, and start to get excited – like Chrissy Mathews, I get “that tingle.” How do you feel when you know you’ve made the right choice?

At this point, you’ve been following the primary race for months, and that means you are looking to make the right choice. Are you aware of how important making the right choice is in this primary process? I agree, and that’s why it is important to keep an open mind. That’s why you’ve read this far, so you might as well hear me out.

Obama has made it clear that he is pinning his reelection efforts on class warfare. So, think about whom you would want the GOP nominee to be if you were Obama, and you needed a target for class warfare? I agree – Mitt Romney. Understand that Obama uses Alinsky tactics, and Alinsky tactic 13 is “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Simply put, it is much easier to attack an organization or an idea if you can ‘put a face on it’. If you can find a single individual who both represents your opponent, and who, given the right spin, can be portrayed as the face of evil, you can use this person as a proxy for your attacks on your adversary. What face would you put on the 1%? Mitt Romney.

You may think that Mitt Romney is a great guy, and a great example of success, and I agree with some of that (and certainly applaud his success), and I would add that you should have no doubt in your mind that this is exactly what Obama will do (stick a big, fat 1% on him), and you can imagine that he is licking his chops in anticipation of doing it. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, this is what the general election will look like. Click Here. No matter what he says or how well he says it, he will not be able to shake that label. How does that make you feel about Mitt? And it doesn’t help that he has a habit of making mistakes and saying the wrong thing. Click here. Even Romney booster John McCain no longer believes Romney can win. Click Here. Moving on.

Obama’s second trick is throwing “red meat” distractions to keep us from discussing the areas where he is most vulnerable, such as economic and foreign policy. The biggest distraction so far has been the contraception controversy. And Rick Santorum took the bait- big time. Rick Santorum is a great father with great moral values, but he is also a one trick pony. Social issues are important, but he just can’t stop talking about them, and that has gotten him in a ton of trouble. The issue isn’t that he talks a lot about social policy, the issue is that he just can’t change gears quickly enough to avoid the damage caused by Obama’s intentional deceptions and sleights-of-hand. Consider how many distractions Obama will throw out there if Rick is the nominee. We’ll be talking about birth control all the way through November. By the time Rick manages to shift the debate back to Obama’s weak points, it may be too late.

Rick also tends to make serious, and very public, mistakes. For example, he loses his cool very quickly. Click Here. Cringing? He also gets confused regularly – in this instance, he gives Obama credit for CREATING jobs, publicly, on CNN! Click here. Just imagine if he makes even ONE mistake like this in the months between the nomination and the general election. Understand the very real risk with Rick. How do you feel about that, given the stakes?

Please understand that all of this is just fact, and I understand that some of you will now feel a bit disturbed and unsure at this point. But, I digress.

Newt is a flawed man, but recognize that his flaws are less subject to substantive attack. For example, Freddie and Fannie? It may be a big deal in the Republican primary, but Democrats do NOT want to go there! Yes, he’s had multiple marriages, but how many times has Rush been married? Do you still listen to Rush, at least here and there? And, of course, Democrats cannot launch credible attacks on the subject of adultery – we can go there. Before I close, I urge you to do one thing, and one thing only… please watch this video – click here. You’ve read this far, so another minute or two won’t kill you. Click here. Now, how do you feel about this man going up against Barack Obama?

The above letter from J.M. Stein at Red Side of Life is so good, as is, that I chose not to break up his text with my comments.

Indeed, Stein makes a very compelling case. But if there is still any doubt in your mind, please consider a few additional facts:

  • Besides the “1%er” card that Stein says will be played against Romney, the Democrats also have their old favorite: the race card. Mitt is a very committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka the Mormons, and until 1978, Mormon theology relegated blacks to a kind of second-class membership in the church. After considerable social and political pressure, the church’s “living prophet” declared a new “revelation” changing the previous position which had been held since the church’s inception. Already, many on the Left are raising a stink about this. We can be sure that if Mitt were the nominee, this ugly issue would only get uglier — much uglier. The Democrat-Media Complex will make sure of that.
  • The issue of contraception is problematic for Santorum not only for the reason Stein explains — namely, that the Left is skillfully and shamelessly using it to sidetrack discussion away from Obama’s staggering malfeasances in both foreign and domestic policy — but also because the driving force behind Obama is the “Shadow Party” funded by George Soros, who has an obsession with population control. Soros and other Agenda 21 promoters believe that world population must be reduced by literally billions of people. Santorum, the father of seven children — one of whom has Trisomy-18, a genetic disorder for which many Leftists believe abortion to be the only appropriate response — has the Left’s bull’s-eye on his back.
  • The Left surely will demonize Newt just as viciously as they would Romney or Santorum. That’s what the Left does — to anyone who opposes them. A key difference, however, is that Newt fights back. Like the late, great Andrew Breitbart, Newt is a “happy warrior” who both understands the Left, and loves taking them on. Plus, like Breitbart, Newt understands that Big Media is every bit as much our opponent as is the Democratic Party. He is smart, articulate and confident enough to be able to answer their attacks on the spot, without hemming or hawing. People in media continually try to nail Newt with their “gotcha” questions — but they never succeed.
  • America’s survival is threatened not only by terrorism and rogue states outside our borders, but by two major enemies within: communism and radical Islam. Yet, no other candidate besides Newt even mentions Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and George Soros. Newt is the only one who seems to recognize — or at least, will publicly say — that Obama is not a misguided incompetent with well-meaning intentions, but rather a Marxist radical who believes America is more evil than good, and who is committed to destroying the freedoms that have made America great. As for radical Islam, while Rick Santorum recognizes the threat from Iran, and is very knowledgeable on national security matters, only Newt recognizes — and openly talks aboutthe giant strides that sharia (Islamic law) has already made right here in the U.S., thanks to CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA and the whole alphabet soup of Muslim Brotherhood-spawned groups that, despite proven connections to Hamas and other terror groups, are presented as legitimate “moderates” in our media and have infiltrated our government at high levels, including within the Department of Homeland Security.
  • We can look around and see the perfect storm of economic collapse, national-security threats and inflamed social passions that is converging on us. America is — whether or not we yet realize it — in as much danger now as Britain was in the spring of 1940. Almost too late, the British people finally recognized that Winston Churchill — whom they’d previously despised as “impulsive” and “arrogant,” whom they’d castigated for his “poor judgment” and “grandiose ideas” — was actually the best man, perhaps the only man, who could lead them through the crisis. I’m not saying Newt is Churchill — but having studied Churchill, I am struck by the remarkable parallels between the two. Just as Churchill saw who Hitler really was long before most of his countrymen woke up, Newt understands the dangers to America that many people have so far been unable or unwilling to see. Newt will help open their eyes — because, like Churchill, Newt has a gift for explaining things in ways people can understand. Just as importantly, Newt has the bulldog tenacity and unabashed can-do attitude that the nation needs in its leader if we are to make it through the tough times ahead. As we saw so clearly during the South Carolina debate — when standing ovations kept erupting as Newt spoke — Newt has, as Churchill did, the power to inspire.
Advertisements

Read Full Post »

…and we are not falling for it.

After all, look who’s talking!

Michelle Malkin has done a great public service by compiling The progressive “climate of hate”:  An illustrated primer, 2000-2010, divided into eight parts, such as Palin Hate, Bush Hate, and Anti-Military Hate.  It’s pretty nauseating — but for the sake of history, it needed to be done, and I can only salute Michelle (she must have a cast-iron stomach) for pictorially documenting ten years of leftist spite and spittle.

BUUUURRRRNING HOT has done more of a bullet-point type inventory of the Left’s vandalism, vulgarity and violence that is even more comprehensive than the one I listed here the other day.

Nice Deb (such an appropriate name!) sums up the leftists’ double-standard quite… nicely:

Why is it that whenever conservatism is on the ascendancy – we are chided by the left to tone it down? We saw it happen in the ’90′s when conservative talk radio was on the rise, and we’re seeing it today with the tea party movement.

“Be civil”.

When the the left is losing all the arguments, what do we hear?

“Be civil”.

As Rush Limbaugh said on his show, Friday; “civility” is the new word for “shut up”.

We are brow-beated by the most uncivil of civilians. We are told to “watch our tone” by people who look the other way when conservative leaders are threatened, or verbally abused in the most obscene and unspeakable terms, or hung in effigy. How many leftists have been willing to defend Sarah Palin against the Tucson blood libel? Most have instead, attacked her for using the term, “blood libel”.

How many have been willing to discuss at any length, threats of violence and hate speech against her?

Be civil?

For leftists, being civil is a one-way street. They’re to say whatever they want, and we are to… shut up.

It’s an old trick. Just ask Muhammad, who preached tolerance during “the Mecca period,” then turned bloodthirsty from “the Medina period” onwards.  This was his strategy: When you’re weak and out of power (you’ve just been taken to the cleaners in the mid-term elections, say), you make nice and talk peace-love-and-flowers. Once you have absolute power (like control of the White House and both houses of Congress), you proceed to rape (our national security), rob (our children’s inheritance), burn (the Constitution …and, of course, effigies of Sarah Palin) and pillage ( the Treasury).  Also, vandalize (what was the best health-care system in the world) and enslave everyone (to unions and/or government, which are getting more indistinguishable by the day).  All the while mocking, jeering, cursing, sneering and spitting in our faces.

Ah, but now — now that Republicans once again have control of the House, along with a majority of governorships and state legislatures — the word of the day is “civility.”

Doug Ross translates that word as “hudna,” the Arabic term that Muslims use to describe not a true truce, but rather, the mere cessation of hostilities — so that they can lull us into a false sense of security as they, meanwhile, regroup to fight another day.

Hmmph!  I’m not buying it, and I hope you aren’t either. Certainly Don Surber isn’t:

For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. Al Gore made a mockery out of the American electoral system by being a spoilsport over Florida, which Bush indeed won by 537 votes. Dan Rather forged a document to try to derail Bush’s re-election. Twice Democrats stole U.S. senators from the Republicans. After voting to support the war to get by the 2002 election, many Democrats quickly soured on the war. The profane protests were cheered by liberals who misattributed “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” to Thomas Jefferson; the words belong to the late [communist] historian Howard Zinn.

Once in power, liberals were the opposite of gracious.

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.

The left wants to play games of semantics.

Bite me.

The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.

Bite me.

There is grown-up work to do now. Liberals ran up the federal credit card, destroyed the American medical system and undermined the rule of law — which is the foundation of capitalism — with a bunch of unconstitutional fiats from the president and his bureaucracy.

The economy is a mess. The president “inherited” a 7.6% unemployment rate. It’s now 9.4% — after we spent a record $787 billion on a stimulus.

I was not consulted on that stimulus. I had a very good argument against it. I said the money supply was too large and printing more money would fail. I said let the economic downturn run its course.

Lefties were too busy celebrating the 2008 election to listen.

When people protested, lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.

So screw you and your civil discourse.

I don’t want to hear it.

I have been screamed at for 10 years.

It’s my turn now. I am not going to scream back. But I refuse to allow anyone to dictate what I say or how I say it. I refuse to allow the same foul-mouthed, foul-spirited foul people who dumped on me to now try to tell me what I may or may not say.

My free speech matters more than the feelings of anyone on the left. You don’t like what I say? Tough.

I will not allow people to label my words Hate Speech or try to lecture me on civility. I saw the lefty signs. The left’s definition of civil discourse is surreal.

We have a terribly unfit president who has expanded government control beyond not only what is constitutional but what is healthy for our freedom.

Indeed, this call for civil discourse is itself a direct threat to my free speech.

So screw you.

You don’t like my words? You don’t like my tone? You feel threatened?

Too bad.

No.

Actually, that is what I want. I want the lefties to feel bad. I want them to feel hurt. I want them to cry to their mommies.

That way the field will be cleared so we grown-ups can fix the nation and the economy. If you can’t put up with a little excrement, get the hell out of the barn.

And if that‘s too tame for you, try Tammy Bruce.

hat tip: NewsRealBlog for the Klavan video

Read Full Post »

The appropriate reactions to what happened in Tucson on Saturday are shock, grief, compassion and prayer.

Also, admiration and gratitude for the people who, unarmed themselves, tackled the shooter and probably saved lives.

Compounding one evil on top of another, however, within minutes of the horrific slayings, we were hearing “mainstream” “journalists” blame political conservatives for the atrocity — despite the fact that the shooter has never had any discernible connection to anything conservative.

There has been a “double standard” in the “mainstream” news media for years.  But it became much, much worse this weekend — a fact illustrated by the Washington Examiner as it compared media reaction this weekend to its reaction to another horrible shooting, the one at Fort Hood fourteen months ago:

On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people.  Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going “to do good work for God.”  There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not “jump to conclusions” about Hasan’s motive.  CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

“The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions,” said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

“We cannot jump to conclusions,” said CNN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. “We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever.”

“I’m on Pentagon chat room,” said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting.  “Right now, there’s messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam.”

The next day, President Obama underscored the rapidly-forming conventional wisdom when he told the country, “I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”  In the days that followed, CNN jouralists and guests repeatedly echoed the president’s remarks.

“We can’t jump to conclusions,” Army Gen. George Casey said on CNN November 8.  The next day, political analyst Mark Halperin urged a “transparent” investigation into the shootings “so the American people don’t jump to conclusions.”  And when Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Ft. Hood attack was terrorism, CNN’s John Roberts was quick to intervene.  “Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions,” Roberts said to Hoekstra.  “By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?”

Fast forward a little more than a year, to January 8, 2011.  In Tucson, Arizona, a 22 year-old man named Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a political event, gravely wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, killing a federal judge and five others, and wounding 18.  In the hours after the attack, little was known about Loughner beyond some bizarre and largely incomprehensible YouTube postings that, if anything, suggested he was mentally ill.  Yet the network that had shown such caution in discussing the Ft. Hood shootings openly discussed the possibility that Loughner was inspired to violence by…Sarah Palin.  Although there is no evidence that Loughner was in any way influenced by Palin, CNN was filled with speculation about the former Alaska governor.

Unfortunately, this “blame-conservatives-now, find-out-facts-later” tactic has become a pattern in the leftist (formerly, “mainstream”) media, as Legal Insurrection makes clear:

Based on what we know now, the attempt to blame Palin and opponents of Obama for the shooting is every bit as delusional as Loughner’s attempt to blame government mind control.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have seen this type of reaction.  The meme that opponents of Obama are crazy and dangerous has been an explicit Democratic Party campaign strategy for over two years.  Here is just a partial list of events in which the left-wing and Democratic Party media operation has immediately blamed right-wing rhetoric, only to be proven wrong when the facts finally came out:  Bill SparkmanAmy BishopThe Fort Hood ShooterThe IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

Jared Lee Loughner may turn out to be the latest addition to that list.  From what we know so far, he mainly appears to be a very mentally disturbed individual, perhaps a paranoid schizophrenic.  But it also appears that politically, he is, if anything, a sympathizer to the Left, not to the Right.

Yet we do not hear any conservative commentators blaming Loughner’s obsessions on leftist rhetoric. Conservatives tend to believe in individual responsibility, so we’re not comfortable with all this blame-assigning in the first place.  If we were, there’s certainly no shortage of violent rhetoric on the left, even explicit calls to violence. Ironically, MSNBC — which this weekend was quick to blame a whole slew of conservatives (including Allen West) for the massacre — only two months ago,  on November 8, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan gave a platform to Ted Rall, author of Anti-American Manifesto, who sat right there on national television and advocated a violent revolution by the Left.

And who could forget these pacific utterances:

A Republican victory in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat.”

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies….'”

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.”

“I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

“I’m itching for a fight.”

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I’m angry.”

Those are all direct quotations from the President of the United States. Great example he sets, isn’t it, of that “civility” he likes to lecture us about when it suits him.

Worse, on the left, it’s not just rhetoric that’s violent, they also hold a near-monopoly on actual incidents of politically-motivated violence. Consider this long list, compiled by Uncoverage, of violent attacks by leftists on people they disagree with.

*It was not the fear of conservative violence that caused Ann Coulter’s speech to be canceled this week.

*It was a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on health care.

*Remember the movies about killing President Bush? Liberals reviewed them as “edgy” and “provocative.”

*How about when the North Carolina Republican headquarters was torched and ransacked?

*How about when the Bush-Cheney HQ was riddled with bullets?

*It was Obama-loving Amy Bishop who took a gun to work and murdered co-workers.

*Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building after writing an anti-conservative manifesto.

*It was liberals who destroyed AM radio towers outside of Seattle.

*It’s liberals who burn down Hummer dealerships.

*It was progressive SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man who spoke his mind.

*It’s doubtful that a conservative fired shots into a GOP campaign headquarters.

*In fact, Democrats have no monopoly on having their offices vandalized.

*Don’t forget, it was Obama’s friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change. SDS is still radical, with arrests in 2007 and the storming of the CATO Institute in July 2008.

*It was a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields to the Republican National Convention in 2008.

*It was a liberal who threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated her Austin-based group that planned to bomb the Republican National Convention.

*It was liberals who assaulted police in Berkeley.

*It was liberals who intimidated and threw rocks through the windows of researchers.

*The two Black Panthers who stood outside polls intimidating people with nightsticks were probably not right-wingers.

*Every time the G20 gets together, it’s not conservatives who destroy property and cause chaos.

*CNN Bobblehead Rick Sanchez tweets:  ”are our fundamentalist zealots different than the ones we fight in afghan and iraq?”

*Democratic National Committee crowd attacks Fox News crew.

*Huffington Post blog organized protest groups to take stalking bus tours of AIG executives’ homes.

*Check out the “ZombieTime Hall of Shame” for some of the most shocking images of leftist, anti-war, anti-Israel, anti-whatever liberal rallies and protests in San Francisco.

* Who burned Sarah Palin’s church?

The Left does not even begin to see their own hypocrisy, much less the disproportionate share of political violence within their ranks.

Or maybe they see it, and think nothing of lying about it.

Or maybe they just don’t care. Breaking a few eggs to make omelets, etc.

As Dostoevsky prophetically wrote, foreseeing the political genocides of the twentieth century, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: