Ah, to be a left-wing Democrat. So much hypocrisy, so little time. To think it was only a few short hours ago when, after bashing Sarah Palin for inciting violence by using cross hairs on a U.S. map, Democrats were discovered to have used the same "target" imagery on their own maps as recently as last month!
As the sun sets on the last day of March, and as the Democrat-media complex continues to smear the anti-GovCare / Tea Party movement as a bunch of angry, violent racists, we’ve got some more hypocrisy coming your way.
First, Rich Trzupek at Front Page makes an astute observation: Some on the Left demand that instances of bigoted remarks and violent acts committed by a Tea Partier—real or made up—must be immediately and publicly condemned by the GOP leadership, and if they don’t then it must mean they tacitly approve of them. Yet, the Left never demands such accountability from leaders of the Islamic world of the acts of terror, murder, and destruction committed in the name of their religion. On the contrary, when the Right has demands such condemnation of Islamic leaders, the Left criticizes them for making such unreasonable and unfair demands.
Mar 31st, 2010 | Front Page
Smearing with a Broad Brush
Rich Trzupek… It’s rather bizarre that members of the tea-party movement and their Republican supporters are called upon to denounce racism and violence, when the foundation of the movement has nothing to do with either. The tea-partiers are campaigning for limited government, fiscal responsibility and the free market. Still, if some unidentified individual supposedly hurls a racial slur at a black congressman, or if another unidentified individual hurls a brick through a congressman’s window, the tea-partiers are called upon to denounce those actions, even though there is no credible evidence that the movement, its principles, or even an actual tea-partier, was involved. Not doing so, the liberal critics say, is tantamount to accepting and encouraging such behavior. Such actions must be condemned and the tea-party movement has a responsibility to make it clear that racists and thugs are not welcome. Tea-partiers and Republicans dutifully say all the right things, that racism is bad and that violence is bad, usually with a rather puzzled expressions on their faces, since it’s 2010 and those points seem rather obvious to anyone this side of Chris “I forgot Obama was black for an hour” Matthews.
The left has established a principle here: if anyone promoting evil or performing evil acts tries to attach himself to an organization or movement, then it is incumbent upon that organization or movement to disassociate themselves from such individuals in the strongest possible terms. Might we apply this principle to another organization, one that features a fringe that embraces violence in a way that makes brick-throwing appear as innocuous as a fifth-grader firing a spitball across the class during study hall? Instead of worrying about some shadowy figure who supposedly shouted racial epithets and whom can’t actually be tied to a movement, might we worry instead about a movement that embraces sexism, not merely along its fringes, but in a huge portion of the mainstream? Such an organization seems ready-made to attract the righteous wrath of liberal America. If such a movement involved fundamentalist Christians or ultra-Orthodox Jews, the liberal media would denounce it, condemn it and expect any co-religionist even remotely connected to the offenders to do the same. There is, of course, one notable exception to this rule: Islam.
If called upon to denounce murderous violence that their co-religionists perpetrate in the name of Allah, the Council on American Islamic Relations inevitably follows the party line: they can not be expected to accept responsibility for the deranged actions of few extremists. That answer satisfies the mainstream media, though it’s not nearly an acceptable response when it comes to the tea-party movement, which doesn’t actually have a death toll even remotely associated with it. From whence does such hypocrisy spring? The answer should be obvious: fear. The liberal media can offend tea-partiers at every opportunity and the worst that will happen is that reporters might get a few angry e-mails, or editors will receive some rude phone calls. Big deal. Were these reporters and editors to offend Islam, the results might very well include a next-of-kin trying to recall where the dear departed stashed a life insurance policy.
Most Muslims are not violent jihadists, but they support – indirectly, albeit vitally – violent jihad through their silence. Perhaps we should look at this differently. To a jihadist like Osama bin Laden, anyone who doesn’t support jihad isn’t following the dictates of the Quran and is therefore not a real Muslim. For bin Laden and his ilk there is no such thing as the Islamic equivalent of a “fallen away Catholic.” If you’re not “all in,” you’re on the other side. In the west, most Muslims aren’t Muslims, as far as the jihadists are concerned. Most Muslim women living in America drive cars, for example. Most Muslims living in America don’t feel it’s their obligation, or a moral imperative, to kill infidels. Their religion is their religion, but it doesn’t get in the way of conscience. That’s great, as far as it goes, but they are actually guilty of the very sin of omission that the mainstream media tries to pin on tea-partiers, in the form of a deafening silence when it comes to their evil, extremist co-religionists constitutes complicity in everything but name. …
El Rushbo made a similar point last week, noting that when radical Islamic terrorists attacked us on 9/11, the Left continually asked, “Why do they hate us?” “What did we do to make them so angry. Not so with the anti-GovCare crowd:/p>
An interesting e-mail, this is a great point from a subscriber to RushLimbaugh.com. “When we have a terrorist attack, the Democrats always ask, ‘What did we do to provoke it? Why do they hate us?’ Have you heard, any of them, ask the same for something they’ve imposed on us? Have you heard the Democrats once ask, ‘Why are they mad at us? We need to understand their rage!’ We have to understand the rage of people who killed 3,000 Americans in terrorist incidents. We’re told, ‘We have to understand the people in this country, minorities and whoever else, unhappy with whatever. We gotta understand their rage. We have to expect it. We have to allow for it.’ Well, how come the anger that we feel, the Democrats aren’t interested in understanding? Why do they not ask, ‘Why are they so mad?’” The answer is because they know.
I’d go even farther: The answer is because they don’t care. Radical Islamic terrorists were never the biggest enemies of the U.S., according to the far Left. In fact, during the Bush years we saw many examples of the Left defending radical Muslims above their own country. (just ask Michael “They are the minutemen! They are the revolution!” Moore.) Regular, voting conservative Americans are.
Next, Evan Coyne Maloney at Brain Terminal put together a fantastic video compilation of actual anger, hate, and violence perpetrated by the Left during the Bush years. Oh, how quickly the Democrat-media complex forgets [h/t Hot Air]:
A Trip Down Memory Lane
31 March 2010Not too long ago, taking to the streets to protest your government was considered a patriotic act.
It’s true!
But it seems that publicly airing your grievances stopped being patriotic right around noon on January 20th, 2009.
Once President Obama was sworn in, protesting became incitement to violence.
If you’ve opened up a newspaper or watched a cable news program in the past week or so, you’ve probably seen members of the media painting Tea Party activists as dangerous bigots. That’s because disagreeing with President Obama on issues like government spending and high taxes makes you a racist, you see.
What’s interesting about the media’s latest freak-out is that there were radicals a-plenty under President Bush. They protested in the streets. They talked openly about revolution and killing. But oddly, the violent imagery used by people claiming to be advocates for peace never registered with the media. They were too busy fawning over Cindy Sheehan.
Why the difference in coverage? Did the media cheerlead the protests against President Bush to hurt him politically? Are they trying to marginalize the increasingly powerful Tea Party movement because they favor President Obama’s agenda?
One thing’s for sure: If there is such a thing as dangerous rhetoric, then the media is at least one president too late in reporting the story.
Don’t believe me?
Well, then let’s take a trip down memory lane...
Well, slap me on the ass and call me Sally!
Some of us are just sick and tired ...
Recent Comments