Vocal Minority

El Rushbo in NYC Yesterday

And I was there, baby!

Obama, Cain, and Family T'giving Discussions

For many of us, Thanksgiving weekend meant seeing family. Because I am one of the extremely few conservatives in both the wife's family and my own, discussions that turned to politics became interesting. None of these conversations were particularly long or involved, but some of them provided some insight that I was not expecting.

Truth be told, I was not spoiling for a fight or really looking for political conversation. But if the topic came up, I would gladly engage. With an uncle the topic of Occupy Wall Street came up. Because I know him to be center-right I thought I was safe to express my utter contempt for the Occupy movement. Surprisingly, I was wrong. My citation of certain Limbaugh quotes about OWS didn't help things either. My uncle was much more sympathetic with OWS than I anticipated -- not their behavior, but their message -- and resented Rush "looking down his nose" at them.

Unfortunately, due to the craziness of the gathering and because dinner was about to be served, I didn't get the chance to follow up by determining exactly what message was being presumed. I had a feeling that this relative, no stranger to newspapers and current events, had formulated his opinions about OWS based on doctored and whitewashed media depictions.

Next, a liberal-Democrat relative asked me, "So, are you still on the Cain train, or is that over?" That was actually a valid question. True, I have not blogged about Herman Cain lately. As much as it pains me to say it, he has totally screwed up the past two debates (foreign policy and national security) as well as his defense against the sexual harassment allegations. If Cain were as serious as he promised, he would have prepared himself much better for those debates.

Let me state right here that, due to all his assets, Herman Cain is still my favorite candidate (along with Newt). But if he allows himself to get crushed by the relentless media smears, false accusations, and his own unpreparedness, it will have been his own fault.

This is basically what I told my questioner.

A third conversation I was simply a witness of, not a participant. A devout Jew declared out loud that from now on she's just voting on the topic of Israel. Good, I thought. Another vote for Obama lost.

Finally, the following exchange took place while enjoying the unseasonably mild weather outside with a Democrat relative whose spouse is among the most staunchly leftist (socialist even) in my family. When she started with the question, "So, don't tell me you like Sarah Palin and this Tea Party crap," I knew this was gonna get good.

I responded, "First of all, Sarah Palin isn't running for anything and secondly, I am a proud Tea Partier and it's not crap to want our nation to return to small, constitutionally limited government." Interestingly, she did agree with me that the Democrats had indeed made government way too massive and intrusive and that maybe she'd vote Republican next year, just for the hell of it. But then she said something about the rich and the poor and there needing to be more "fairness" and then said she's probably a socialist. I clarified that if she was really socialist then she would want government to get even bigger, not smaller.

Yes, she was all over the place. She really doesn't follow politics and basically just "goes with the flow." These are the people we have to get hold of. When "independent" minds listen to arguments, they should in theory side with conservatism.

Anyone else out there have family political discussions this past weekend that turned interesting?

Global Warming Lie #7: The Science Is Settled

I haven't blogged about man-made global warming climate change in a while. So much other stuff going on!

Lately we have an international oil pipeline that can deliver energy to millions of and jobs to thousands. Yet, the radical environmentalist left, including President Hope&Change, is blocking it. Why? The hoax of mmgwcc, that's why.

Meanwhile, not covered by the DBF* media of course is the fact that scientists are jumping off the mmgwcc bandwagon more and more. In Britain, in continental Europe, and in the U.S. 

Karin McQuillan summarizes these developments in this AT piece:

Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided.  The public doesn't know where the global warming theory came from in the first place.  Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body.  The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries.  It waspolitical from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate.  Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.

This is important.  Global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research that enabled us to understand our climate.  We still don't understand global climate any more than we understand the human brain or how to cure cancer.  The science of global climate is in its infancy. ...

There is a lot of emotion and little common sense in this argument.  If a diagnosis is based on a shaky and partly fraudulent theory, ignores much more convincing evidence, and has terrible negative side effects, you don't perform major surgery.  We do not have to run around like Chicken Little on the off-chance that the sky may be falling.

There has been a high economic cost to limiting our oil and gas wealth, with much human anguish because of government-imposed economic contraction.  Responsible government policy requires honest media coverage, unfettered scientific inquiry, and robust political debate.  Our country cannot afford the costs of foolish energy policy based on politicized science and fear.

She's correct. That's all this has been: politicized science and fear. A hoax on which basis the environ-mental-ist left can control our energy, control our prosperity, control our lives.

Williams on Liberal Economic Illiteracy

The great Ronald Reagan once said, "The problem with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant. It's that they know so much that isn't so." There's probably nothing that illustrates the veracity of that statement better than economics.

The thing that motivates the Democrat left the most -- and unfortunately apolitical types who simply were just never properly educated on the topic -- is stunning economic illiteracy. The entire mess our country is in is due largely to the implementation of policies by leaders with a dangerous ignorance of basic economics and obstinate refusal to accept the most basic aspects of human nature. The havoc wrought upon societies by the economically illiterate have been on full display in countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, and, to a much more tyrannical extent, Cuba and North Korea.

Unfortunately for us Americans, too many of our current leaders are cheerleaders for the dismally failed policies that have ravaged these nations, insisting, as El Rushbo, Mark Levin, and others claim, that the reason Marxism-socialism failed in those countries was simply that the wrong people were in charge. That mentality brought us to where we are today: A nation whose economic policy has been drafted and implemented by overeducated Ivy League morons. (Mind you, I'm not trashing the entire Ivy League; yours truly has his Masters from Princeton).

Unfortunately for us Americans as well is the fact that our elitist economically illiterate leaders have convinced enough of "the masses" of the soundness of their ideology. Hence the Occupy movement. Hand in hand with the immature, uncivilized and violent behavior of Occupy movements around the country goes the fallacious philosophy that they have been taught about capitalism and society.

What is exactly do Occupiers and their cheerleaders in government and academia believe?  It's pretty well summed up by the brilliant Walter E. Williams in his most recent article:

Class warfare thrives on ignorance about the sources of income. Listening to some of the talk about income differences, one would think that there's a pile of money meant to be shared equally among Americans. Rich people got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. Justice requires that they "give back." Or, some people talk about unequal income distribution as if there were a dealer of dollars. The reason some people have millions or billions of dollars while others have very few is the dollar dealer is a racist, sexist, a multinationalist or just plain mean. Economic justice requires a re-dealing of the dollars, income redistribution or spreading the wealth, where the ill-gotten gains of the few are returned to their rightful owners.

In a free society, for the most part, people with high incomes have demonstrated extraordinary ability to produce valuable services for — and therefore please — their fellow man. People voluntarily took money out of their pockets to purchase the products of Gates, Pfizer or IBM. High incomes reflect the democracy of the marketplace. The reason Gates is very wealthy is millions upon millions of people voluntarily reached into their pockets and handed over $300 or $400 for a Microsoft product. Those who think he has too much money are really registering disagreement with decisions made by millions of their fellow men. ...

Stubborn ignorance sees capitalism as benefiting only the rich, but the evidence refutes that. The rich have always been able to afford entertainment; it was the development and marketing of radio and television that made entertainment accessible to the common man. The rich have never had the drudgery of washing and ironing clothing, beating out carpets or waxing floors. The mass production of washing machines, wash-and-wear clothing, vacuum cleaners and no-wax floors spared the common man this drudgery. At one time, only the rich could afford automobiles, telephones and computers. Now all but a small percentage of Americans enjoy these goods.

The prospects are dim for a society that makes mascots out of the unproductive and condemns the productive.

Indeed. I pray this national mindset can be turned around before it's too late.

Believe me, I'm not arguing that capitalism is perfect. But it is definitely the most humane and productive economic systems humankind has yet divised, and light years more so than what Obama and his followers have in mind.

 

Jeff Jacoby: Making Americans

From JWR:

On the one hand, newcomers streaming to the United States found out quickly that they were expected to become honest-to-God Americans. That meant learning English, getting a useful job, embracing America's democratic values and institutions, and eventually taking the oath as new citizens.

On the other hand, immigrants weren't obliged to shed their ethnic pride, or to drop the foods and customs and festivals they brought with them from their native land. They were free to be "as ethnic as they pleased." ... The goal of assimilation was not to make all Americans alike; it was to get newcomers, however dissimilar their backgrounds and cultures, to believe that they were "irrevocably part of the same national family." ...

As my fellow 4^th-graders and I belted out the lyrics to ... "P-I-L-grim fathers landed here on Plymouth Bay" -- we probably assumed that Mrs. Feigenbaum was just getting us ready for the Thanksgiving assembly. She knew, of course, that she was doing something far more important. She was getting us ready to be Americans.

Score for Senate GOP: Donald "The Mad Doctor" Berwick to Leave Post

Wow, here's a major surprise: One of the scariest human beings picked by Obama is relinquishing his post following pressure by Senate Republicans.

Medicare/Medicaid head Donald Berwick, a wealth-distribution and health-care-rationing nut, will be stepping down December 2, according to AP [h/t Daily Caller]:

A major supporter of the president’s health care reform law will be relinquishing his post as head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid to his number two in command after Republicans successfully prevented his confirmation to the post.

Harvard professor Donald Berwick — who once explained that “excellent health care is, by definition, redistribution” — will step down Dec. 2 officials confirmed to the Associated Press on Wednesday.

To learn more about the "mad doctor," listen to this clip from the Mark Levin show from May, 2010. Thank goodness this dangerous person will soon be gone.

 

Obama's Politicized Response to Super Committee Failure: Rush Called It Days Ago

This is why Rush Limbaugh is one of the smartest commentators out there (Not that it was totally unpredictable but ...):

Obama's entire strategy is no deal. … Obama's praying for super committee failure. His $1 billion campaign requires it. … Not only is failure not an option, failure is the goal.

-- Rush Limbaugh, November 16, 2011

It's smoke and mirrors, folks. You put 12 partisan Democrats on this committee who have as their number one objective reelecting Barack Obama and I will guarantee you that there is no way that this problem's gonna be solved. That's not the Obama strategy … to solve the problem. The Obama strategy is to exacerbate the problem and then get together with the media and blame the Republicans for it.

-- Rush Limbaugh, November 21, 2011 (afternoon)

… [D]espite the broad agreement that exists for such a [balanced] approach, there's still too many Republicans in Congress who have refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that are coming from outside of Washington. They continue to insist on protecting $100 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at any cost, even if it means reducing the deficit with deep cuts to things like education and medical research. Even if it means deep cuts in Medicare. So at this point, at least, they simply will not budge from that negotiating position. And so far, that refusal continues to be the main stumbling block that has prevented Congress from reaching an agreement to further reduce our deficit. …

Although Congress has not come to an agreement yet, nothing prevents them from coming up with an agreement in the days ahead. They can still come together around a balanced plan. I believe Democrats are prepared to do so. My expectation is, is that there will be some Republicans who are still interested in preventing the automatic cuts from taking place. . …

--Barack Hussein Obama (Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!), November 21, 2011 (evening)

Liberal Media Bias: CNN 'Developing Story': 'Is Cain the Anti-Women Candidate?'

Un-freaking-believable. Ken Shepherd at NewsBusters has this report about a developing CNN story: 

CNN 'Developing Story': 'Is Cain the Anti-Women Candidate?'

Seeking to breathe new life into the political damage of unproven sexual harassment charges against him, CNN's Lisa Sylvester presented viewers with a "developing story" in the 4 p.m. hour of The Situation Room entitled "Is Cain the Anti-Women Candidate?"

Sylvester glommed onto "recent controversial comments" Cain has made, such as referring to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as "Princess Nancy," and saying that "tutti-frutti" is the ice cream flavor that would best describe Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).

I can't believe this is considered news or anything worth discussing period, let alone making a story around. Saying "Princess Nancy" is anti-woman??? This is the same brain-dead mentality that incited Herman Cain's supposed "victims" of crying "sexual harassment"! Calling Pelosi "Princess Nancy" is more than apt. I could think of much worse.

Where was Donna Brazile when Sarah Palin was called the worst names by the staunchest of Obama supporters? What about all the misogynous attacks on Michelle Bachmann? Crickets chirping. Just like with all the racist attacks on Herman Cain (which is all this is)?

This talentless hack who must have gotten her journalism degree out of a Cracker Jack box continued:

"Some critics see him as the anti-women candidate," Sylvester insisted of Cain, turning to "CNN contributor Donna Brazile" who "says he has a credibility problem with women." Sylvester failed to note that Brazile is a liberal Democratic strategist who contributed to President Obama's campaign this September.

Donna Brazile??? Of course she contributed to the Obama campaign! She's not just a Democrat strategist, she's a bitter partisan and wholly biased liberal hack. She's the woman who ran Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, infamously saying that they weren't going to "let the white boys win."

And she's a CNN contributor? Jeez, what a surprise. Curiously, to this day CNN has not done a story about whether Donna Brazile's then-candidate Al Gore was the "Anti-White" candidate. (I know what you're thinking: Wait, Al Gore is white! Silly reader, you're trying to look for logic in a statement made by a liberal!)

They are just throwing everything they can at Herman Cain until he goes down.

Racists.

Liberal Hypocrisy: Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Obama

Victor Davis Hanson's latest article is so good, I've reposted it here in its entirety. This one deserves to go viral. It sums up the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama perfectly: Everything Obama believes is 180 out of phase with reality. And everything Obama does is 180 degrees out of phase with would he should do to fix problems he purports to want to fix.

The presidency of Barack Obama is full of funny things that need not follow any sort of logic. Images and ideas just pop in and out, without worry of inconsistency, contradiction, or hypocrisy. It’s a fascinating mish-mash of strange heroes and bogeymen, this imaginarium of our president.

In the imaginarium there are no revolving doors, earmarks, or lobbyists. So Peter Orszag did not go from being OMB director to a Citigroup fat-cat. Once chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel did not make $16 million for his well-known banking expertise.

The more you damn the pernicious role of lobbyists and the polluting role of big money, the more you must hire and seek out both. Public financing of campaigns is wonderful for everyone else who lacks the integrity of Barack Obama who understandably must renounce such unfair impositions.

Those who now vote against raising the large Obama debt ceiling are political hucksters and opportunists; those who not long ago voted against raising the smaller Bush debt ceiling were principled statesmen. “Unpatriotic” presidents borrow $4 trillion in eight years; patriotic ones we’ve been waiting for can trump that in three.

Catching known terrorists and putting them in Guantanamo is very bad; killing suspected ones by drone assassinations — and anyone unlucky enough to be in their general vicinity — is exceptionally good. Tribunals, renditions, preventative detention, and all that were bad ideas under Bush-Cheney, but could become good ideas under Barack Obama, the law professor who often sees no need to follow the law when an immigration or marriage statute is deemed regressive.

A million Iranians protesting a soon-to-be-nuclear theocracy is false revolutionary consciousness and to be left alone; a few thousand Israelis wanting to buy apartments in the Jerusalem suburbs is subversive and worthy of presidential condemnation. And when atoning for supposed American lapses, what better place to begin apologizing than in Turkey, the incubator of the Armenian, Greek, and Kurdish mass killings? We need to deny history to make the case that America is not exceptional, and to invent it to persuade us that the Muslim world is extraordinary.

Twenty-four months of a Democratic Congress, and over $4 trillion in spending, resulted in 9.1% unemployment and near nonexistent growth. Yet the culprit for the current situation is ten months of a Republican-controlled House that has yet to approve another $500 million of borrowing. In the imaginarium, just a little more of the massive amount that has failed will not fail. But if the Republicans are to be blamed for not wanting to waste the last half-trillion, are the Democrats to be praised for borrowing the first wasted $4 trillion?

In the imaginarium, all sorts of demons and devils can unite to derail the brilliance of Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan. ATMs have for the first time after 2009 begun to eliminate jobs. But then so did the Japanese tsunami and the EU meltdown. The DC earthquake did its part, but then so did climbing oil prices and the Arab Spring. Of course, the ghost of George Bush floats over all the present mess. Economic gurus like Austan Goolsbee, Peter Orszag, Christina Romer, and Larry Summers used to write brilliant essays of what would work if they were to be in charge, and now write brilliant essays about why it did not work when they were in charge.

There are lots of ways to bring Americans together across class and racial lines. One in the imaginarium is to focus on the “teabag, anti-government people.” Another is to encourage Hispanics to “punish our enemies” — or have the attorney general lambaste Americans as racial “cowards” and to defend “my people.” Joining foreign governments to sue a fellow American state is no more red/no more blue state unity. Still another is to divide up the people between the suspect who make over $200,000 and the noble who make less, or yet again target the dubious “1%” at “the very top” who do not pay “their fair share,” a mere 40% of the aggregate income tax.

Inside the imaginarium, the way to demonize the “1%” is to vacation among them — whether at Martha’s Vineyard or Costa del Sol. Buying a corporate jet is a waste of the people’s money — unlike daily flying on a much bigger private jet paid by the people.

To encourage energy self-sufficiency, the administration lent a half-billion dollars to campaign donor insiders and got unsellable solar panels in return — as it prevents a huge pipeline from Canada that will bring “shovel-ready” jobs and fuel to the United States far more cheaply than from the volatile Middle East. We have a brilliantly obtuse energy secretary who is a Nobel laureate but who thinks California farms — a record $15 billion in exports this year — will soon blow away and that gas should climb to European levels of about $9 a gallon. In the imaginarium, the purpose of Dr. Chu’s Department of Energy is not to encourage energy production and lower prices, but to find ways to prevent its development in search of raising its cost. The attorney general must be entirely conversant in small matters like a Black Panther voting intimidation case, but was completely ignorant of large ones like Fast and Furious that saw his subordinates sell automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

The president regrets that we are not innovative any more, and have gone “soft” and “lazy.” You see, his efforts at ensuring cradle-to-grave health care entitlements, of granting 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, and of extending food stamps to nearly 50 million are apparently incentives that should have led to a “hard” and “industrious” populace that was more self-reliant and willing to take risks on their own. “Spread the wealth” is a time-honored way of galvanizing people to become more self-disciplined and sufficient.

Business has failed us as well. And the way to get Las Vegas and Super Bowl junketeering CEOs profitable enough again to fund the growing redistributive state, is for them to take risks that result in the sort of massive projects that used to be an American trademark — things like the Hoover Dam, which changed the environmental landscape far more than would the apparently cancelled gargantuan pipeline from Canada to Texas. Business can be encouraged not to be lazy by a prod now and then — either by trying to shut down a big aircraft plant or a small guitar factory. And in the imaginarium, the way to gently chide the private sector is with words of encouragement like “millionaires and billionaires,” and “corporate jet owners,” along with grandfatherly advice to clueless capitalists about realizing the point at which they should cease making money.

In the imaginarium of Barack Obama there is no contradiction between smearing and shaking down Wall Street, a bunch that needs both to be told when and when not to profit, and to whom and to whom not to give tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Barney Frank, who helped pressure Wall Street and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue billions in unsound loans, and Chris Dodd, who shook down fat cats for below-market interest rates for his vacation home, logically are the eponymous heroes of the Dodd-Frank fiscal reform act to ensure others do not do as did they. Former liberal governor, senator, and Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine, who both wrecked MF Global and can’t account for $600 million in lost investments, is, in George Soros-like fashion, the best emblem of the contradictory desire to be the worst pirate on Wall Street in order to make the most money in order to be its most liberal critic. In the imaginarium we receive advice about the need for higher income taxes from multibillionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who have always sought to avoid them. Big government and big inheritance taxes, both magnates swear are good, and therefore the administration of their own postmortem fortunes will forever avoid both.

In the imaginarium, community organizer Barack Obama never lived in a small mansion. John “two Americas” Edwards never lived in a big one. “Earth in the balance” Al Gore never lived in a few of them, and yacht owning John Kerry never lived in lots of them. You see in the imaginarium of Barack Obama you can be whatever you wish to be. Just wishing and saying something can wonderfully make it so.

 

Mark Levin Unveils New Book Title!

The Great One announced the title of his new book on yesterday's show: "Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America."

Hope it's as brilliant has his previous ones.

It's to be released on January 12 (which is El Rushbo's birthay, I believe. Coincidence???)

The Eloquence of Obama's Inaction

Excellent article by Jeannie D'Angelis at AT.

... Barack Obama fritters away precious time on frivolous campaign junkets, tours classrooms in Pennsylvania, attends fundraising dinners, and delivers remarks at events like the National Women's Law Center's Annual Awards dinner.  As American cities devolve into open-air sewers, giant Petri dishes where 'give us more' squatters multiply in a broth of hostility, hate, and envy, the President is all about the vital work of deciding whether or not to tax Christmas trees. 

In fact, right about the time Obama flew off on a nine-day $9 million Asian tour, a suicide took place in 'Occupy' Burlington and gunshots fired into a crowd killed a protester in Oakland.

By comparison, based on Barack Obama's tolerance of widespread incivility it appears the Tucson call for mutual respect may have merely been a plea for civility towards Barack Obama. Otherwise why would he fail to condemn a movement that has become a melting pot of shootings, deaths, tuberculosis outbreaks, alleged rapes, anti-Semitic aggression, lewd conduct and more? 

The master of liberal didactic artistry may not realize it, but in a way he has returned to teaching. This time the lectern is positioned squarely in the middle of America and the lecturer is speaking loudly without uttering a word.

Hopefully, the nation is conscious and aware, because whether America rises or falls as a nation clearly hinges on our citizens recognizing the message conveyed by Obama's non-verbal lessons and deliberate inaction.

If Shakespeare was right and "Action is eloquence," Barack Obama's silence and purposeful inaction are in fact a distinct action - and the President of the United States has never been more eloquent.

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin on H.S.'s Ban of Wearing Flag on Cinco de Mayo (11/11/11)

This is a follow-up from an earlier story. On May 5, 2010 a high school assistant principal in California prohibited students from wearing shirts displaying the American flag because he feared it would incite violence from offended Mexican students. Yes, you read that right.

Well, the issue went to federal court and the judge ruled on the side of ... the assistant principal.

Don't try to simmer down just yet. Here's The Great One last Friday -- Veteran's Day -- discussing the ruling. The second of the two clips is really moving: it contains comments from four callers, two of whom are Hispanic themselves and are thoroughly disgusted by the threat of violence from the Mexican students, the action of the assistant principal, and the decision of the federal judge.

[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]

Download clip here

Download clip here

Liberal Stupid-Ass Comment: Bill Press Compares Herman Cain to Jerry Sandusky

Who's Bill Press, you ask? Don't know. Don't care. Some lefty who used to be on CNN and has his own show somewhere. On his Friday broadcast he actually compared Herman Cain to Jerry Sandusky [h/t Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer]: 

What's the difference, really? There's no difference, really. I mean, okay, we have maybe sexual assault in the case of Sandusky, but let me tell you something, assuming, and if what Sharon Bialek says is correct, that's a lot more than sexual harassment on Herman Cain's part. That's sexual assault on his part. I think any lawyer would tell you that. So I just get sick of these right-wingers trying to defend this guy when five different women come forward. Five different women come forward! Same story. You're just believe him?

So with nothing but hearsay from two very suspicious and opportunistic women, Press made this offensively inapt comparison.

The racist.

 

This Whole Cain Harassment Thing Stinks

This whole gaggle of Cain accusers suddenly out of the woodwork stinks. To high heaven.

First, by Michael J. Fell at the Colony Rabble blog:

Don’t be concerned that one accuser currently serves as a communications director at the Inspector General’s Office of the Treasury Department, a position she has held since last year.   A member of the “progressive” administration leveling charges against a Conservative political opponent?  There’s nothing to see here folks.  Zero possibility of conflict of interest.

Never mind that Gloria Allred pigeon Sharon Bialek, who has a history of financial troubles and legal squabbles, who has been described as a complete gold digger; the day after making her accusations enjoyed her fifteen minutes of fame spending her waking hours smiling her way through the morning TV rounds.  This is just business as usual in reality TV America.  There is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about this.  Perhaps if she plays her cards right she’ll get a shot at a Kardashian style wedding scam someday.

Never mind that Bialek lived in the same Chicago building as top White House aid David Axlerod.  That’s purely coincidence.  She just happened to live there.  Big deal.  You know, like the current White House occupant just happened to live in the same neighborhood as 1960′s Weather Underground radical and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers?  Nothing to worry about.  That was ”handled” by the “progressive” Party Pravda back in 2008 when they demonstrated full blown journalistic incompetence by repeating the “progressive” campaign’s claim that Ayers was “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood” ad nauseum.

Don’t concern yourself with the fact that Bialek met publicly with Cain just a month ago at a Tea Party event, an encounter witnessed by WIND radio co-host Amy Jacobson, who described it this way: “It looked sort of flirtatious,I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.” ...

And my girl Ann (Coulter) smells the B.S. all the way from Chicago:

Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country -- Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. -- but never in Chicago.

So it's curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O'Grady's name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain's personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them -- by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod's very building? Right again: Cain's latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

Bialek's accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.

Within 24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was constantly in financial trouble -- having filed for personal bankruptcy twice -- and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod's apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."

Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she's Obama's next Cabinet pick.

The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them. ...

From his press conference Monday evening I was even more convinced that Herman Cain is completely innocent of these ridiculous smears. I'm also becoming more convinced that this is a Democrat-media smear campaign of a black conservative. Nothing less.

Let the facts yet to come prove me wrong.

 

 

Liberal Anti-Semitism: OWS, Installment #2 [WARNING: Language]

The Blaze [via Zombie via Urban Infidel]  reports last night on a couple more anti-Semitic incidents from OWS. The following transcript shows the two Americas that exist right now: The hard-working, socially responsible, and productive (represented by the Jewish man) and the slovenly, entitled, and unproductive (and foul-mouthed):

Jewish man wearing a yarmulke: I work 65 hours a week.
Protester: You probably live in the Hamptons ‘n’ some shit.
Jewish man: I live in the Hamptons? I live in Brooklyn…I work 62 hours a week. Do you work 62 hours?
Protester: You know what’s funny? Your people own schools and fuckin’ government buildings, but your wives are on welfare. I don’t understand that. I don’t understand that. I met a public assistance officer. And they were Jewish, but their husbands own fuckin’ everything.
Jewish man: I work 62 hours a week. How many hours a week do you work?
Protester: I don’t work. How about them apples?
Jewish man: So why don’t you get a job?
Protester: I don’t need a fuckin’ job.
Jewish man: Why not?
Protester: You don’t need paper! We can grow our own fuckin’ food. We can shoot our own fuckin’ animals. We can do all that shit. We can build our own fuckin’ houses.
Jewish man: How do you get the materials?
Protester: We can just take it from the Earth! You come from the Earth. This comes from the Earth. Everything comes from the Earth, you dumb motherfucker! Like seriously. Technology comes from the Earth, protons, neutrons, electrons.
Jewish man: Is this a real conversation? Is this a real conversation?
Other OWS protester: He’s making points. But he’s making points.
Jewish man: What are the points?
Protester: I don’t need a point. It comes from here (indicating the ground). It came from here for free! Why we gotta pay for it? It’s here for free! Why we gotta pay for it? It’s bullshit. This is bullshit.

Yet another instance is exemplified by this discussion:

Anti-Israel protester: War — that’s the only thing you understand. Them people in Palestine, you killing ‘em so bad that they gotta strap themselves up with bombs, and go take buses into Israel and blow themselves up and die. Ain’t an Israeli person going into Palestine, strapping themselves up with a bomb, and killed one Palestinian person. They gonna shoot them with guns, they gonna shoot them with [fire]. They ain’t got no heart, because they don’t have no righteousness. There’s no love for that. You got to really be about what you’re saying to sacrifice your life. C’mon, don’t tell me that they’re about that. C’mon, man, don’t talk to me about that, Israel. When you said that, I got to stop you, because what you’re saying is the lies. Actual lie. They’re not about peace. Israel is doing the same thing to the Palestinians that the Germans did to the Jews. Bottom line. They’re doing the same thing to the Palestinians that the Germans did to them.
Anti-Israel protester #2 (pointing to pro-Israel protester): You don’t want to hear the truth. You don’t like the truth! Ha ha!
Anti-Israel protester: You think we about lies? You think I came out here on my day off to just hear some lies? I came out here to bear witness to the truth. You can’t be talking lies in front of the people. C’mon, man. Talking about ‘Israel is about peace.’ It ain’t about peace. They’re about destroying people. If they had ovens, they’d put the Palestinians in ovens. And you know it.
Anti-Israel protester #2: That’s why the Jews come into existence.
Anti-Israel protester: Ain’t nothing about peace when you come to Israel. Israel is totally about war and destruction. And you know it. …
Arabic-speaking man: Can she ask you a question? She’s a journalist from the Middle East, and we cover these stories here.
Middle-Eastern journalist woman: [Asks question in Arabic.]
Arabic-speaking man: [Translating her question] Has there [been] anyone that has responded to what you’re calling for?
Anti-Israel protester: Everybody agrees with what I said. Every word I said, everybody agrees with it.

Absolutely no coverage of this by the mainstream media. Could you imagine if anything remotely like this occurred at a Tea Party!

Ignorance Exploited

Walter E. Williams' latest at Human Events.

Politicians and leftist elite get away with corporate tax demagoguery because economists haven't done well in making our subject understandable to ordinary people, not to mention that we have derelict news media people with little understanding.

I love the title of his piece, "Ignorance Exploited," because it is so apt. There is nothing better that describes the Democrat base than as people whose ignorance is exploited by the very politicians who claim to have their best interests at heart.

Liberal Media Bias: The MSM's Curious Scandal Coverage Disparity

Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters noted yesterday that the three major network news stations have done more reports on Herman Cain's sexual harassment scandal in one week (84) than they ever did on three scandals of candidate Obama: His relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (41), his relationship with his rabid anti-American and anti-Semitic "Reverend" of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright (82), and his relationship with Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko (40):

With this new allegation, it seems a metaphysical certitude that the networks' coverage of the Cain "scandal" will soon surpass their combined reports of all three of Obama's.

Exactly how do the heads of these news outlets explain this glaring disparity in coverage?

Gee, I dunno. Couldn't be 'cuz, as usual, the mainstream media's taken sides???

And it's not just Obama the MSM dutifully provided cover for. Andrew Klavan at PJ Media reminds us:

In 1998, when Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff got the full details of President Bill Clinton’s adulterous affair with a 21-year-old intern, the magazine killed the story, leaving the nascent new media, in the person of The Drudge Report, to bring it to light. In 2007, when John Edwards was still a viable Democratic presidential candidate, the National Enquirer broke the news of his illicit affair and illegitimate child, but the mainstream media actually covered it up, with one CNN journalist explaining it was “unimportant.”

And yet when the left wing news website Politico recently published anonymous allegations about 10-year-old sexual harassment complaints against Cain, the mainstream media lit up like a Christmas tree. For a week, the aforementioned CNN and the other left wing outlets went wall-to-wall with the charges. And now, with Sharon Bialek finally stepping forward to make more detailed accusations in person—accusations Cain wholly denies—we can be sure the story will remain explosive for some time to come.

Not only is the news coverage of alleged sexual misconduct different according to political affiliation, the consequences of actual misconduct are often quite different as well. Republican congressman Mark Foley sent suggestive emails to male pages; he resigned under GOP pressure. Democratic congressman Gerry Studds actually had sex with one of the boys, then flung defiance at the House when they censured him; he was re-elected by Democrats until his retirement.

And what if a drunken Republican senator had accidentally dropped a car containing his adultery mate into the water? What if he had sauntered back to his hotel to clean up while the poor woman desperately pounded on the car window until she drowned horribly? Would conservatives have re-elected that man? Would they have declared that man “The Lion of the Senate?” The very idea makes one ill. Conservatives would have demanded his arrest and trial with a single voice. ...

So, with one hour before Cain publicly responds to the charges of one Ms. Sharon Bialek, it stands to be worth repeating that when it comes to Republican scandals (such as they are) vs. Democrat ones, the MSM have several times revealed their alliances.

Liberal Appeasement: One Day After Supporting OWS, Men's Wearhouse in Oakland Vandalized by Protesters

I was sitting in the cafe at a book store right next to our own local Men's Wearhouse when I first read on Friday that a MW in Oakland put up a ridiculous sign that they "Stand with the 99%" -- and closed their doors, forgoing business, on Nov. 2. On-line commenters were saying they'd never shop MW again. But the store next door had no such sign, so why should I boycott a store in N.J. just because of something another store did in California?

Then I learned over the weekend that George Zimmer, the MW CEO whose face we see on all those T.V. commercials, was a Howard Dean supporter. Really? Dean? Come on, Zimmer!

Anyway, I saw two ways to interpret MW Oakland's sign: (1) They really did support the Occupiers who had spent the past couple weaks literally wreaking havoc on the city, or (2)  They cowardly put up the sign to appease the bullies so that they wouldn't get vandalized, as other stores in Oakland already have.

Regardless of whether either or both those interpretations are right, it failed miserably. As the Pundit Press blog reports this morning, MW got a rock hurled at its window by the honorable, respectable, Nancy Pelosi-endorsed protesters.

Before sucking up to Occupy Oakland thugs:

After sucking up to Occupy Oakland thugs:

Any questions? (But remember: These guys are juuuuust like the Tea Party)

Mark Steyn, with his typical biting wit, writes:

I’m a proud member of the 1 percent, and I’d have been tempted to smash ‘em myself. A few weeks back, finding myself suddenly without luggage, I shopped at a Men’s Wearhouse, faute de mieux, in Burlington, Vermont. Never again. I’m not interested in patronizing craven corporations so decadent and self-indulgent that as a matter of corporate policy they support the destruction of civilized society. Did George Zimmer, founder of Men’s Wearhouse and backer of Howard Dean, marijuana decriminalization and many other fashionable causes, ever glance at the photos of the OWS occupiers and ponder how many of “the 99%” were ever likely to be in need of his two-for-one deal on suits and neckties? And did he think even these dummies were dumb enough to fall for such a feebly corporatist attempt at appeasing the mob?

Nice job, Men's Wearhouse. That's really speaking truth to power and stickin' it to the man.

 

End the Occupation! - OWS-Inspired Socialism Being Taught in (Where Else) California

Brian Sussman at AT reports on a disgusting display of Marxist-socialist propaganda being pushed as curriculum for 4th-7th graders by the California Teachers Association. The inspiration for this latest scholastic infusion of leftism: Occupy Wall Street.

"Considering Democracy in Occupy Wall Street," was the title of a teaching guide recommended for grades 4-7. The lesson plan was assembled by the Morningstar Center, a leftwing organization that teaches "social responsibility."

In the guide we read,

"...there are some ways that our country isn't always democratic, even though people do have rights such as a vote and free speech. Ask students if they can think of some examples. (Examples include: people and corporations with lots of money can make political contributions that give them more influence over our government than other people. Another: people who have a lot of power and resources can pay to have their opinion heard.)"

What's ironic is that this material is being offered at a resource area sponsored by a very wealthy teachers union. Unions are corporations, and influence politics as much, or more, than most other organizations -- especially in California! [Exactly!]

As for people "who have a lot of power and resources," ask gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman how that worked out for her. She spent nearly $100 million of her own money in her quest to become the governor of California, but was defeated by union-backed Jerry Brown.

The guide goes on to describe the Occupy movement for the school children:

Occupy Wall Street is a group of activists who want to change the way money, wealth, and income are distributed in the U.S. They want to change the fact that there is a very big difference between how much money and wealth rich and poor people have. Also, they want to make our country more democratic so that even people with little money and power can have more of a voice.

Did you catch that? "Change the way money, wealth, and income are distributed". The economically illiterate Left continue to operate on the false premise that wealth (in the U.S. at least) is a zero-sum game: that is somebody lacks something, it's because someobody else has it.

It gets worse:

Also on the resource table was another lesson entitled, "Ten Chair Simulation of the Distribution of Wealth."  The plan was produced by Polly Kellogg, a teacher at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota (her specialty is "neocolonialism and global consequences of corporate capitalism").

Kellogg contends that, "The corporate elite who own the majority of the wealth not only control our economy, but also own most of the media and influence government policies. When students become aware of this concentration of wealth and power they begin to see the necessity of thinking critically about the system in which we live."

Kellogg uses a musical chairs theme to illustrate the collective net worth of those in the United States, as if the amount of money in America is a zero-sum game.

To begin the simulation I ask ten students to volunteer to line up at the front of the room seated in their chairs, facing the rest of the class. I explain that each chair represents ten percent of the wealth in the U.S. and each occupant represents 10% of the population, so that when each chair is occupied by one student, the wealth is evenly distributed. I explain that wealth is what you own: your stereo, the part of your house and car that are paid off, savings like stocks and bonds, vacation homes, any companies you own, your yatchs [sic], villas on the Riviera, private jet airplanes, etc. Then I ask students to estimate how much wealth each family would have if the wealth were equally distributed. Students usually guess about $50,000 and are surprised to hear that the answer is $250,000. I ask them what it would feel like if every family could have a $100, 000 home, a $10,000 car paid for and $140,000 in savings.

Oh gawd ... Where to begin?

Two (at least) major problems with this activity, one empirical, the other pedagogical. First, it can be argued that "wealth" is not only "what you own." To the Left wealth is always material, never spiritual or psychological. Wealth does not equal happiness, but to the Left no one can be happy if their next door neighbor has a nicer car or stereo than them. That's why on more than one occasion I've heard the cringe-worthy argument that an abortion is justified if the baby would be born in a less than perfect environment. To the Left, being dead is preferable over living with a 10-year-old Hyundai parked in your parents' driveway instead of a brand new BMW! If that's not sick, I don't know what is.

Pedagogically, this entire activity is based on feelings, not thought. This is another Leftist trait: Make decisions based on what you feel; don't form conclusions based on what you think. This is not how you create a generation of critically thinking adults. But it is how you create a generation of emoting Democrat-voters.

There is absolutely nothing in this lesson that explains the presumably unfair disparity of wealth among the participants. No where is the indespensible variable of personal choice. Nowhere is it suggested that student A might have $250,000 in wealth because they worked their ass off for 10 years in medical school and now works 60 hours a week as a doctor while student B might have slacked off their entire young life playing XBox and getting high with their dirtbag friends, barely graduated high school and managed to squeeze by into a college that gave them a two-year degree in "just staying out of jail."

Naturally I'm being extreme but my main point is important: Nowhere in this entire curriculum is the vital lesson that the amount of wealth you earn is highly contingent upon how hard you work and what kind of character you develop. To the Left, it's all result-oriented. It's merely: "Student A has $250,000, student B $50,000. And that's not fair. How do you feel about it?"

This is exactly how the OWS protestors think: Someone (THEM) has more than somebody else (ME) and that's not fair. Therefore, we demand someone with power (GOV'T) to steal it from them and give it to us. This economic illiteracy is dangerous and we are seeing the destructive results of it at Occupy protests around the country. The curriculum falsely teaches the schoolchildren that student B has only $50,000 because student A has $250,000 -- i.e., wealth has been unfairly distributed -- when the truth is that, through hard work and making the right life choices student B can earn as much wealth as she wants regardless of how much student A has!

Sussman concludes his report on the CTA curriculum with this quote from John Adams:

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

Ain't that the truth.

Along the same lines, I'm reminded of the following brilliant monologue delivered earlier this week by El Rushbo about the OWS protestors. Essentially, they are the Democrat Party base:

The Democrat Party base is what is destroying this country, and the effort to coddle them and to take care of them and to continue keeping them in that position that they're in of total dependence, no opportunity at acquiring wealth or achievement. The rest of us have to pay for their crazy, stupid life choices. The rest of us have to see our wealth and income transferred and redistributed to people who've made rotten choices. (Among the worst choices they've made is to vote Democrat.) The Democrat Party base is the nation's losers, and we need to start pointing this out.

You want to start talking about people not paying their fair share? Yeah, it's the Democrat Party base that's not paying their fair share. It's the 47% or whatever the number is that don't pay income taxes who are not paying their fair share. It's not the top 1%. It's not the people working. It's not people getting up every day and doing everything they can to make this country work. They are not the ones who are not paying their fair share! The Democrat Party base are the people not paying their fair share: the 49%, 47% that are paying zilch, zero, nada; and they're the ones that we're told ought to get everything. They're the one who ought to get all the benefits.

They're the ones who ought to get all the transfers of wealth. Somehow, they're in their circumstance because of the 1%. "The 1% stole everything those people used to have!" Wrong. Those people are in the positions they're in because they have made rotten life choices, and they have had those choices confirmed and affirmed by the Democrat Party who want those people dumb and stupid and unproductive. That's who's not paying their fair share, and that's what the Republican Party needs to start pointing out. "This is a war," as James Carville would say. American politics is a war. We don't treat it that way. Not us. Not you and me, folks. I'm talking about the people that represent us in large part.

I, for one, have had it. I have had it with the people who are working in this country being called the people who aren't paying their fair share.  I have had it with people who are getting up every day and slogging against every effort this administration's making to kill this economy, to still go to work every day, make this country work. They are not the people who are screwing up.  They are not the people who are not paying their fair share. They're doing more than their fair share and they're facing obstacles like they've never faced before in this administration, and still they get up and they go to work every day.  It offends my sensibilities to hear these people described as not paying their fair share,  because don't believe for a moment that the Democrats simply mean that 1% is not paying their fair share.

They're after everybody that's working, they're after everybody that's paying taxes, and they want to raise them. And, meanwhile, the people who don't work, the losers that make up the Democrat Party base, that's for whom we're supposed to have compassion and sorrow, because of their life choices. We are the majority in this country, and we are the ones who make it work. I'm tired of being blamed, flat-out tired of having the finger pointed at me and you and everybody else who's working or trying to work or trying to get a job. Instead, what do we do? We're supposed to have sympathy and compassion for a bunch of whining losers! We're supposed to feel sorry for a bunch of people who are where they are because they have chosen it. And, as I say, their number one choice has been to vote Democrat. You get what you pay for.

This, in my opinion, is what the CTA want to create: This curriculum has nothing about education or learning. It's a political effort to produce a new generation of Democrats. Economically illiterate, lazy and unmotivated, non-critically-thinking and wholly emotional, perpetually jealous Democrats.

If this crap does not get removed from our public schools, all we are doing is created future generations of OWS protestors: economically illiterate brats who believe they're owed something that somebody else has. I don't believe I am overreacting. This nation is truly doomed.

END THE OCCUPATION! LIBERALS OUT OF THE SCHOOLS NOW!!!

Why I Left Liberalism #21 - They Can't Handle the Truth: Liberal Friends Respond to Attack on French News Office

It's like a broken freaking record:

(1) Yet another violent act in the name of Islam occurs somewhere around the world.

(2) Politically correct head-up-their-ass apologists insist the act has nothing to do with Islam (or at least with authentic Islam).

(3) Those who dare to attribute the attack to the global threat known as radical Islam are accused of "Islamophobia" or are at least admonished for blaming an entire "community" just because a couple of kooks does something violent.

Yesterday, in an incident reminiscent of the Danish newspaper "Mohammed comic strip" ordeal, a French news office was firebombed for daring to disrespect Islam's dear prophet:

Fire at French newspaper after Muhammad issue
By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press

PARIS (AP) — A firebombing that destroyed the offices of a French satirical weekly that "invited" the Prophet Muhammad as its guest editor was denounced Wednesday by Muslim leaders and politicians from all sides.

But behind the public show of unity was a silent fear that the spoof could trigger a wave of violent protests among western Europe's largest Muslim population, and beyond.

No one was injured in the blaze that started around 1 a.m. in the offices of Charlie Hebdo in eastern Paris, hours before the issue featuring a caricature of Muhammad on its front page hit the newsstands.

"Everything will be done to find those behind this attack," said Interior Minister Claude Gueant, visiting the newspapers burned and disheveled offices.

The director of the weekly, who goes by the name Charb, called the issue "a joke" and defiantly held up a copy of the paper as he stood amid the rubble. He vowed that next week's issue would be published.

"We'll do it with pencils and paper," said one writer, Patrick Pelloux, on the i-Tele TV station.

The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo, with its typically cutting humor, was focussed on last week's victory of a once-banned Islamist party in Tunisia's first free elections and last month decision by Libya's new leaders that Sharia, or Islamic legislation, will be the main source of law in post-Gadhafi Libya.

A police official cited a witness saying that someone was seen throwing two firebombs at the building. The official was not authorized to speak publicly while an investigation was in progress.

Charb, the director, said a Molotov cocktail lobbed into the offices caused the fire. He blamed "radical stupid people who don't know what Islam is," for the attack. ...

You got it? It wasn't Muslims, but rather "radical stupid people." And where do these "radical stupid people" get their ideas from? A voice in their head?

But it's not just the newspaper director who refuses to accept the truth. When I posted this story on Facebook, two of my liberal/Democrat friends responded in part like this:

FB Friend #1: Is it really necessary to lump an entire community together when a group of extremists does something insane?

FB Friend #2: Why is it necessary to dehumanize and degrade the entire religion with this kind of phrasing? Is there not value in making distinctions between the thugs who cannot bring their religion out of the 14th century and those Muslims who do practice their faith in peace? And how can we ask those that do practice a peaceful brand of Islam to be brave and stand up with us against the extremists in their religion if we continuously mock their religion. ...

It should be mentioned that one of these writers, who I know to be a big Obama fan, doesn't seem to hold the President of the United States to the same standard as s/he does me. For the past few weeks President Golden Calf, Veep Biden, and other prominent Dems have been ratcheting up the leftist base accusing Republicans as a whole for booing gay soldiers and for wanting people without health insurance do die.

This because at a recent GOP debate two to three people in an audience of thousands booed not a gay soldier but the loaded question the soldier asked, and because at another debate two to three people in an audience of thousands cheered at a question posed to candidate Ron Paul whether a 30-year-old man who was irresponsible enough not to purchase his own health insurance should be "left to die" by society.

These two occurrences were enough for countless members of the Democrat-media complex including Obama himself to paint the entire Republican Party as enjoying booing gay soldiers and wanting uninsured people to die.

This is a true example of "lumping an entire community together when a group of "extremists" does something insane". But don't you dare connect the umpteenth act of Muslim violence to being a problem with Islam in general. That would be unfair and insensitive!

Who can recall when only 11 months ago, when a lone crazed kook shot down Arizona Dem. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, the most prominent members of Democrat-media complex took to their respective megaphones to point at the "climate of incivility" created by Sarah Palin (???), conservative talk-radio, and the conservative / Tea Party faction of the Republican Party! President Golden Calf himself traveled to  Tucson to usher in a new "Era of Civility" (which he and the Democrats immediately reneged on the second he walked off the podium, by the way).

To add insult to injury, the Tucson shooter wasn't even associated with or inspired by any Republican whatsoever, yet the Democrat/liberals blamed the Republican Party anyway! 

This is a true example of "lumping an entire community together when a group of "extremists" does something insane". But don't you dare connect the umpteenth act of Muslim violence to being a problem with Islam in general. That would be unfair and insensitive!

And finally, even to this day -- as Obama- and Pelosi-approved Occupy Wall Street protests continue to create ravage, destruction, and violence upon dozens of U.S. cities -- the Tea Party Movement is painted as being extremist, radical, and possessing "elements of racism".

Why?

Because the Democrat-media complex says so, that's why. No substantiation of accusations necessary when you're of the Left.

But if one needs a specific example, a Tea Party-hater would probably cite the hurling of 15 racial epithets and spitting at black congresspeople when they walked out of the Capitol building after passing the Obama(Doesn't)Care bill.

Except that never happened, and video footage and a yet-unwon $100,000 bet proves it never happened.

But, believing that it did happen, the Democrat-media complex used the fake story to paint the entire Tea Party as racist and violent.

This is a true example of "lumping an entire community together when a group of "extremists" does something insane". But don't you dare connect the umpteenth act of Muslim violence to being a problem with Islam in general. That would be unfair and insensitive!

I think you get the picture.

To conclude, I am so tired of the notion that it is unfair to point out the continual execution of violent acts of many members of a community. Perhaps my Facebook friend's Muslim neighbor doesn't condone violence in the name of their religion, and my Muslim neighbor doesn't either. But many Muslims have and continue to commit violence worldwide. Even before the French news office bombing happened, Coptic Christians in Egypt and their churches are being attacked by Muslims in Egypt, and a "Palestinian" woman is reported in the news to be pleased that her fifth son has sacrificed his life as a suicide bomber.

The West is committing suicide with the p.c. head-in-the-sand belief that unless every single Muslim commits an act of terror, you dare not attack them! Well screw that. My children's lives are more important than offending the Muslim community, OK?