Christian Hartsock at Big Government has this disturbing video of a rally in Palm Springs.
These left-wing rallyers, comprised of members of Common Cause, Code Pink, Greenpeace, and other usual suspects, were dissatisfied of the SCOTUS's Citizens United decision. In fact, they are so dissatisfied, many were happy to go on camera and express their desire to hang or lynch Justice Clarence Thomas and even "send him back to the fields." The other right-leaning justices are threatened with physical violence as well, as are Glenn Beck, Fox News, etc.
Hartsock quips:
In post-Tucson America, where for the past few weeks a chorus of voices on the left have amplified their attacks on the “racist tea party,” “racist conservatives,” “racist Republicans,” and their “violent, irresponsible rhetoric” to the degree of accomplice-to-murder accusations, I figured a left-wing rally such as this would also be a demonstration of the left’s ideal, self-proclaimed rhetorical composure.
And having done extensive video coverage interviewing demonstrators in over fifty tea parties in forty-five cities in twenty-five states yet finding a total of zero instances of the “racist” and “violent” stigmas the left relentlessly assures us are true, I certainly didn’t expect to find almost every imaginable instance at one single “progressive” rally. ...
Not only that, but there was really nothing different there than what we saw at "peace" rallies during the Bush years. With posters and with spoken word, opponents of the liberal protesters were asked to be shot, hung, beheaded, tortured, you name it.
But that was when a Republican president was in office. That was when saying such things was celebrated, even patriotic.
The rules changed at 12:01 on January 20, 2009 when the same crowd that boo'ed the Bushes as they exited the White House began their campaign to label the slightest critic of the Obama agenda as racist, uncivil, inciting violence, blah blah blah.
Here's another thing: There are SCOTUS decisions that each "side" will disagree with. G0d knows there are plenty that the right could have done without. Roe v. Wade, anyone? Yet I can't recall a time when anti-abortionists demanded the violent deaths of the Justices who supported that decision.
You might be thinking: Yeah, but what about all the abortion doctor murderers!? I can say right at the onset that I do not in any way condone such vile acts, but I still wouldn't conflate a handful of extremist abortionist killers with crowds numbering in the thousands inciting this kind of violence.
Soooo, how much you want to bet that not one mainstream media outlet will air this racist, uncivil, and violence-inciting event?
In a recent column, David Corn bemoans what his friend Jonathan Alter refers to as the "Obama Hate Machine (OHM)." Corn concludes, "That's an appropriate name for the right-wing attack network that will throw any charge it can concoct -- regardless of the facts -- at the president."
This from the man who, in 2004, penned The Lies of George W. Bush, where, in the introduction, he declares, "George W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small, directly and by omission. He has mugged the truth-not merely in honest error, but deliberately, consistently, and repeatedly." ...
I haven't been in hiding, dear readers. Just been away this week on business. But this article compelled me to come out of the woodwork with this piece from Larry Elder, and one from Dennis Prager. It's in response to the Democrat-media complex's insistence that there's something wrong with the 70% of Americans who oppose the Ground Zero mosque, rather than with them:
… Liberals should be sympathetic. They are quite adept at willfully refusing to face facts, if necessary, to support wrongheaded views. Here are some examples:
“The rich don’t pay taxes.” False. For the 2007 tax year (the latest income tax data year released by the IRS), the top 1 percent of income earners, those making over $410,000 a year, paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent, those making about $160,000 a year or more, paid 60 percent of all federal income taxes. Yet according to a 2008 IBD/TIPP poll, only 12 percent of Americans knew what the rich, in fact, paid in taxes. And liberals are likelier to get it wrong.
“The rich exclusively benefited from the Bush tax cuts.” MSNBC’s insufferable lefty Ed Schultz said: “Ninety-eight percent of you, it (the Bush tax cuts) doesn’t even affect you.” False. In a recent New York Times editorial, the liberal paper said extending the cuts to the non-rich—a policy it favors—would “cost” about $140 billion next year. Extending the cuts to the rich—a policy it opposes—would “cost” about $40 billion next year. If the tax cuts only benefit the rich, why would the Treasury “lose” more money from the non-rich than it would “lose” from the rich?
“The Bush tax cuts caused the deficit.” CNN’s liberal host Fareed Zakaria said, “The Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit.” False. In 2002, tax revenues were $1.85 trillion. In 2007, revenues had grown to $2.57 trillion—a 39 percent increase. Unfortunately, outlays increased almost as much. In 2002, outlays were $2.01 trillion. In 2007—the last year before the recession and before TARP, the various “stimulus” programs, bailouts and ObamaCare—outlays were $2.73 trillion, a 36 percent increase.
“Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.” Thirty-five percent of Democrats, according to a 2007 Rasmussen poll, believe President Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, and 26 percent are “not sure.” False. This was investigated years earlier and refuted by the 2004 bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report.
“George W. Bush ‘stole’ the 2000 election.” False. In November 2001, The New York Times wrote: “A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore.” …
… In the left’s worldview, conservative opponents of affirmative action cannot be driven by concern for blacks — opposition is animated by racists; conservative opponents of illegal immigration are animated by racism and xenophobia; opposition to abortion is a function of sexism; President Bush went to war for oil and American imperialism; and conservative supporters of retaining man-woman marriage hate gays.
This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say “There are good people on both sides of the issue” because we actually believe it.
Almost any contentious issue would provide proof of the left’s need to attack motives, but the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero provides a particularly excellent example.
I have not come across a mainstream leftist description of opponents of the mosque/Islamic center being built near ground zero that has not ascribed hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted, “Islamophobic” or xenophobic motives to those who oppose the mosque. Contrast this with how mainstream opponents of the mosque describe the proponents of the mosque and you will see an immense divide between right and left in the way they talk about each other. …
Why does the left attribute only nefarious motives to those who believe that the Islamic center does not belong near ground zero?
Because leftism holds these beliefs:
1. Those who hold leftist positions are, by definition, better people than their opponents.
2. Those who hold leftist positions have, by definition, pure motives; therefore, the motives of their opponents must be impure. …
"Don't give in to fear ..."? This uttered by a president who:
said he needed to sign a $trillion "stimulus" bill immediately or else the economy will collapse,
said he needed to bail out GM immediately or else the entire auto industry will go irrevocably belly-up,
said he needed to sign gov't-run health (s)care into law immediately or else millions of Americans will die due to lack of health insurance coverage,
said he needed to sign a $26 billion unnamed bill immediately or else millions of American children won't be able to go to school due to lack of paid teachers.
sicced his DHS and media thugs on regular Americans exercising their Constitution right to protest against their rogue government, scaring people into believing the country was under a growing threat of racists, white supremacists, Timothy-McVeigh-wannabes, and crazed militiamen.
sicced his DOJ and media thugs on Arizona, scaring people into believing Nazi-zona police would be rounding up random brown people at ice cream parlors asking for their pay-pahs!
over-exaggerated the damage done by the BP oil leak and put a moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in order to scare people into believing that beneath every oil rig was an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
Two years ago on the campaign trail, the whole "hope vs. fear" slogan was overused and tired. But now it's just hypocritical.
There's a bumper sticker I see every day I'm at work:
"Democrats vote their hopes; Republicans vote their fears."
Right. Because the whole Chicken Little "The sky is falling!" campaign that poisons our schools, bookstores, and movie theatres is an example of Democrat hope.
The environ-mental-ist movement of activists and bureaucrats mobilizing to ban everything from DDT to silicone breast implants to transfats to sugary foods and drink in school vending machines for fear that all these things and much more are killing us!!! - that's really Democrat hope.
Millions of anti-Iraq war protesters marching in the street for seven years calling George W. Bush Hitler and terrorist - another prime example of Democrat hope.
Those same protesters and their political cheerleaders campaigning on accusations that the Bush administration was either (a) creating a totalitarian police state with the Patriot Act and Club G'tmo, (b) establishing a right-wing Christian extremist theocracy, (c) making the whole world, especially the Muslim world, hate us, or (d) All of the above - that was definitely Democrat hope!
A disturbing video was unearthed and posted on YouTube yesterday. It was a 3:45-minute clip from a rally in Washington, D.C. At this rally, which took place on November 7, 2009, the speakers cursed incessantly before a cheering crowd—including young children who were watching while sitting on the stage.
One speaker declared that they were at war [with other Americans] and that they all needed to take up an aggressive struggle against their adversaries—fellow U.S. citizens.
Another speaker besmirched the Jewish people and Israel and rambled on like a lunatic about Zionist plots against them and their allies
Yet another dedicated his speech to the Fort Hood shooter, who had blown away 13 innocent people just two days prior.
Oh, there’s more: These speakers and their audience were clearly not fans of President Obama. How do I know? Because to a still cheering and encouraging crowd, speakers called Obama a coon, a m*therf**ker, and, several times, a n*gger. One speaker, a foul-mouthed woman who made particular use of these racial slurs, demanded that someone “whup [Obama’s] ass.”
Yes, dear reader. There is now actual clear video evidence of President Obama being the target of racial slurs and receiving violent threats.
This must be one of those racist Tea Parties we keep hearing about, right? The ones with the “racist elements”?
Or maybe it’s a group of angry, white old people who gathered to hear from their favorite Fox News commentators or right-wing talk-show hosts?
Perhaps it’s a recent gathering of the RNC or some conservative group that has been the media has accused of stoking racial tensions and unrest since a black man got in the White House?
No, no, and no. It isn’t any of those things. This public display of hatred, violence, and racism was brought to you by a coalition called “Black Is Back” and the event was co-organized by one Reverend (!) Curtis Gatewood, a long-time official of the NAACP in North Carolina.
David Stein, who runs my favorite new website as of 30 minutes ago, YesButHowever!, writes:
If the majority of Rev. Gatewood’s controversial actions and statements have been under the radar, his first major clash with the national NAACP leadership was not. Four days after 9/11, on September 15th, 2001, Gatewood (then in his position as president of the Durham NAACP) gave a fiery speech at a monthly local NAACP meeting in which he implied that the World Trade Center victims were racists, and he called upon African-Americans not to fight in any wars against terrorism.
“Black males can no longer be used as sacrificial lambs at the time of war….Those black males who make it back home alive from war are likely to come home and be discriminated against by the very people whose businesses were headquartered in the World Trade Center, racially abused/profiled by an American police officer, killed on the streets in their crime-infested neighborhoods, or harmed by Bush administration policies….This is not the time to sacrifice our fathers, sons and brothers to a country that has not protected our rights.”
Jeez. This guy almost makes Jeremiah “G0d damn America” Wright look moderate by comparison.
You might be wondering at this point why a coalition of black people are so pissed off at Barack Obama.
As you will find out from watching the video below, it is mainly because he is too lenient to whites, as well as to Jews and Israel. That is, in their eyes, Obama isn’t “black” enough. They believe he has coddled those they consider the biggest enemies of blacks, and that he has sold out to who his true friends should be, including the Palestinians and other areas of the Muslim world supposedly oppressed by whites and Jews, and even Jeremiah Wright.
All right. Here’s the clip [from YBH via Weasel Zippers]. I highly recommend you watch it far away from sharp objects.
November 7, two-thousand-freaking-nine. Nearly 10 months this event took place. And we’re just finding out now what went down there.
These are sick, and, quite frankly, dangerous, people. Yet there they are under the auspices of the NAACP, which, as we are all very aware, is very sensitive to the “racist elements” of certain groups. As Stein reminds us:
At its July 2010 annual convention, the NAACP approved a resolution condemning “racist elements” in the Tea Party movement and calling on the movement’s leaders to repudiate bigotry and reject any “racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement.”
Well guys, how about rejecting this? In fact, at the end of the video, the words on the screen present three questions:
Where is the outcry from the media?
My answer: There won’t be. Only whites can be racist. In this current political climate, even if there’s no evidence of racism, you’ll either be accused of thinking racist thoughts or you’ll just have stories about you made up out of whole cloth.
Where is the outcry from the NAACP?
My answer: They’ll most likely pull a Sherrod/Breitbart by claiming the video was either doctored or taken out of context, and then ignore it.
What if this had been a Tea Party protest?
My answer: It wouldn’t have been. Because, unlike these hateful pieces of human excrement, members of the Tea Party movement never have and never would behave this way.
... Now 20 months into the Obama presidency, the question is: How does the Arab and Muslim world now view America? What percentage in the same six Arab nations — compared with Bush's last year in office — now views the United States "very unfavorably" or "somewhat unfavorably"?
The answer: 85 percent — 2 points higher than Bush.
Daughter A attended a state college, the University of Texas. Daughter B got her BA at uppity Stanford and her Master’s at even more uppity Oxford.
Upon graduation from college, Daughter A taught at a charter school for disadvantaged children. She also published a biography about a 17-year-old single mother in Latin America infected with HIV. She met this girl while working as an intern for UNICEF in Panama.
Daughter B went from college right to a six-figure position in a New York City consulting firm. She then took a job making the same type of money for a hedge fund firm whose owner is a heavy donor to her father and his party.
As you’ve probably surmised by now, Daughter A is Jenna Bush Hager, daughter of that eeevil rich oil guy George W. Bush—a Republican. Daughter B, naturally, is newlywed Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky, whose Democrat father has always been depicted by the media as a man of the people, champion of the little guy, the first black president, etc., etc. etc.
Does something seem about 180 degrees out of phase to you?
(Should we also mention that George and Laura Bush live on a ranch in Crawford, Texas while Bill and Hillary Clinton reside in a mansion worth seven-figures in tony Chappaqua, New York.)
And speaking of the media, the media’s coverage of both daughters both during and after their father’s terms in office is well-documented. Chelsea’s privacy was dutifully respected. If her life was frought with trouble, as is the case with many young people facing many worldly temptations, you’d never know it from following the U.S. mainstream media.
Jenna and her twin sister Barbara, however, did not enjoy the same respect for privacy afforded to Chelsea. Their run-ins with the law due to underage drinking—which virtually everyone does and they know it—were exploited by the media and used to bash their father, himself a recovering alcoholic. (It is quite clear that the only people not to be sympathized with or forgiven for alcohol, drug, or marital problems are conservatives/Republicans. The name Rush Limbaugh ring a bell?)
Kathleen McKinley, who documents the stark contrast between the two daughters at Right Wing News, writes:
Gosh. Which daughters sound more “Republican” and which more “Democrat?” In Chelsea’s case, all things lead back to more money for her parent’s political ambitions (and for herself). In the twin’s case, all things lead to helping mankind.
I’m just saying. There is perception, and then there is reality. Interesting, is it not?
Interesting and infuriating.
Don’t get me wrong: Like most conservatives talking or blogging about the subject, I don’t begrudge Chelsea Clinton her extravagant star-studded dream wedding, her six-figure salary, or her parents’ palatial digs.
What I take serious issue with, however, is the line constantly repeated by Democrats that it is they who are the party of the little guy, and that Republicans are not.
In honor of today, the 22nd anniversary of El Rushbo’s national radio show, here are three classic clips downloaded and kept over the years.
The first clip, from Monday, June 7, 2004, is the first half of a tribute to Ronald Reagan, who had passed away over the weekend. Even though it was merely the first term of George W. Bush’s presidency, Rush’s eulogy made you really miss the Gipper. Now, during this dark age of the oppressive Constitution-shredding liberty-squelching and wealth-stealing triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid, is Reagan ever more missed.
The second clip is from April 26, 2007. The economy was still pretty robust, unemployment impressively low, and record tax revenue coming in, thanks in no small part to those eeeevil Bush tax cuts. That, Rush shows us, did not stop the lib Bush-hating media to spin the news as negatively as humanly possible.
Finally, the third clip, also from April, 2007, is from an immigrant from Peru. She used to believe the hate-America tripe of the liberati - which was eerily similar to the hate-America trip she would get from the Hugo Chavezes and other socialist demagogues of South America. This is, until she came across Rush's TV show one night.
Dittos, Rush! Here’s to 22 more years!
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
CNN contributor and former Clinton advisor Paul Begala has a problem with President Hope&Change being criticized for all the vacations he’s been on. And he’s been on a lot, even during the BP oil spill.
To GOP criticism, Paul Begala retorted:
The president is the president wherever he is … I thought it was silly when people attacked Bush for going on vacation, so I’ll be consistent and say it’s silly when people attack President Obama for going on vacation. …
Of all of the concerns that Americans may have, they do not need to worry whether President Obama is a hard-working man. They may agree or disagree with his policies, but there is just no doubt that the guy is busting his rear end.
It’s no surprise if you’ve been losing sleep over what’s been going on in the White House. The Better Sleep Council wanted to find out which candidate would make people lose more sleep over the next four years.
Their ingenious poll of registered voters shows that President Bush has a 42-40 percent edge as the one who would lead you to have more sleepless nights. Well, the good news for President Bush is they did choose him, as well, as Commander in Sleep. Forty-four percent say he seems the more well rested candidate of the two.
Probably because he spends so much time on vacation, Gary [Bauer]? I don’t know.
I wondered whether that was the only time Begala criticized Bush’s vacations, and did a Google search myself. Lo and behold, from CNN Crossfire on June 23, 2004:
… If anybody is shirking his job, it is Mr. Bush.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
A quick count of President Bush’s vacation days shows that he has spent an astonishing 43 percent of his entire presidency on vacation, sometimes at his multimillion-dollar 1,600 acre ranch in Texas with its own private 10-acre lake stocked with 5,000 bass, sometimes at his family’s multimillion-dollar three-story mansion in Kennebunkport, Maine.
Mr. Bush even stayed on vacation after he was warned of Osama bin Laden’s plans to hijack airplanes and attack America. George W. Bush is plainly a gentleman of leisure. So let’s send him on a permanent vacation November 2.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
… On August 11, he was warned that bin Laden had a plan to attack America. He went and played golf.
But apparently Begala would have a problem with Obama critics taking note he’s played more gold in 18 months than Bush in all 8 years as president.
Back to July 16, 2010 one more time:
The president is the president wherever he is … I thought it was silly when people attacked Bush for going on vacation, so I’ll be consistent and say it’s silly when people attack President Obama for going on vacation. …
And that, my friends, is the latest example of liberal hypocrisy.
Allow me to set the stage: It's the 16th of March, 2004. The U.S.-led battle in Iraq is about to reach the one-year point. The Bush-hatred is at full force, with John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and other '60s-radicals-turned-politicians leading the Democrat Party in rooting for defeat of their own country.
Here's Rush expressing his frustration over this fact. Maybe it's me, but in this 6½-year-old clip his voice sounds younger and less raspy than today.
While looking through some old computer folders this weekend, I came across a collection of “classic” audio clips featuring three of my favorite radio hosts: El Rushbo, Mark Levin, and Dennis Prager. “Classic” is in quotes because the clips span the “good ol’ days” from 2003-2008. Essentially, the pre-Podcast days (for me, anyway), and covering at least four years before yours truly started blogging.
Listening through some of these clips, it’s interesting and eye-opening to realize just how much our country has changed since then. It is impossible to imagine a world when the name Barack Obama was completely unknown. What did they talk about in those bygone days!? Well, George W. Bush of course, and the Bush-hatred of the Democrat-media complex. The war on “terror.” Iraq. Some presidential candidate named John Kerry and the Swift-boaters who exposed him.
I literally have enough archives to cover every day until the end of this year. As I clean them up of commercial breaks and any other extraneous sections, I’ll gladly share them with you.
Here’s the first one, from September 24, 2007. Dennis Prager responds to a Colorado State University newspaper editorial comprised of only four words: “Taser this: F**k Bush.”
The president has become the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. …
Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the “Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.”
Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it.
This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”
Now Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving, and true. Indeed, for Obama, it’s the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.
Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.
Even if Americans don’t get the message, the rest of the world does. This week’s pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.
But what did the “loss” of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was “one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination.” Really? Evidently it never captured Obama’s imagination, because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl’s fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: “one of those moments” — you know, like Princess Di’s wedding, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, whatever — “that captured the world’s imagination.”
Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite — that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don’t even need an “imagination.” Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassas and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi to Jakarta to Khartoum to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Va. In the old days, you needed an “imagination” to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism, the sight of Pearl’s severed head is a mere click away.
And the rest of “the world”? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl’s death too uncomfortable and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Obama. The president is only the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. Before him, it was Michael Winterbottom in his film A Mighty Heart: As Pearl’s longtime colleague Asra Nomani wrote, “Danny himself had been cut from his own story.” Or, as Paramount’s promotional department put it, “Nominate the most inspiring ordinary hero. Win a trip to the Bahamas!” Where you’re highly unlikely to be kidnapped and beheaded! (Although, in the event that you are, please check the liability-waiver box at the foot of the entry form.)
The latest appropriation is that his “loss” “reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” It was nothing to do with “freedom of the press.” By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that some 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Sharia, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl’s murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists from Osama to the Pantybomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi.” But Obama’s not the kind to take “guilty” for an answer, so he’s arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.
Listen to his killer’s words: “The American Jew Daniel Pearl.” We hit the jackpot! And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, The Independent’s Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl’s kidnappers: Killing him would be “a major blunder … the best way of ensuring that the suffering” — of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians — “goes unrecorded.” Other journalists peddled a similar line: If you release Danny, he’ll be able to tell your story, get your message out, “bridge the misconceptions.” But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that’s a misconception. …
“My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, U.S.A.”
He didn’t have a prompter. But he spoke the truth. That’s all President Obama owed him — to do the same. …
As far as I’m concerned, Barack Obama crapped on Pearl’s memory. First, this whole “free press” is a freaking joke. Steyn is right in noting Pearl’s murder had nothing to do with a free press. It had to do with the threat by radical Islam to freedom, period. This is a lesson that President Hope&Change and his feckless gaggle of blame-America-first cronies like Hillary and Posner still haven’t learned.
Second, Obama craps on Pearl’s memory by referring to his brutal on-camera beheading a “loss.” How insipid and callous can one get?
Thirdly, as Steyn points out, how can Obama insist on caring about Daniel Pearl when he and his America-hating terrorist-coddling AG Holder have defied all reason and historic precedence to give his beheader taxpayer funded attorneys to be defended him in civilian freaking court!
Finally, as Steyn also notes, by taking on this “one world” stance, Obama is exposed for his typical blame-America-first mentality. He apparently believes that the killing of Daniel Pearl could somehow have been prevented if only the U.S. engaged the Muslim world and the rest of those other countries it—read: Bush!—isolated for too long.
How can anyone argue that Obama gives one whit about Daniel Pearl and the real reasons he was killed? I’ll bet Barack Obama never even saw the video of Pearl’s beheading. I only saw it once and that was enough to make me almost need to run to the bathroom and puke. He is not only completely ignorant, but also truly cold-hearted and devoid of any character whatsoever. I have absolutely no respect for this empty-suited and empty-hearted shadow of a human being that now occupies the Oval Office.
UPDATE: A slightly tweaked version of this article appears in this morning's (Monday, May 24) Washington Times.
CODEPINK activists stage a citizens arrest of Karl Rove at his book signing in Sacramento, CA on May 10, 2010.
Hmmm, I wonder if this qualifies for the anger, rage, hatred, and anti-government sentiment President Hope&Change and the Democrat-media complex.
Of course not. As we saw incessantly between November 2000 and January 2009, you can have all the anger, rage, hatred, and anti-government sentiment you want - as long as the target of it all is a Republican.
Isn't it nice being a liberal/Democrat? Just make up your own rules that benefit only your side. And if someone calls you on it, just call them a RACIST! Yeah, that'll shut 'em up.
Oh boy, is Rush Limbaugh in trouble. This time he’s gone too far!
For at least two days earlier this week the lefty media and blogosphere have been abuzz with two different statements that he made w.r.t. the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
First is Rush’s claim that environmentalist wackos blew up the oil rig on purpose in order to show the country that off-shore drilling is too detrimental to the environment and should be immediately stopped. Chris Hayes of The Nation, Anderson Cooper on CNN, Joy-less Behar of ABC and somewhere else, Stephen Colbert on MSWTF, some Brown chick. And that’s just folks talking on TV. The lefty e-zines from Mother Jones to the Atlantic are discussing it too. Oh yeah, and Chris Matthews on his show reported that Rush suspected the Obama administration of sabotaging the oil rig to advance their environmentalist agenda.
Except for one small problem: Rush never said any of those things. He was merely wondering out loud (on April 29 and some other subsequent days) why the Obama administration sent SWAT teams out there to investigate the exploded oil rig and that perhaps they suspected some sort of sabotage.
As to Chris Matthews statement that Rush was implicating the Obama administration itself, he was clearly confused by the fact that while discussing Obama’s decision to send SWAT teams, he noted that the sequence of events was quite curious: The oil rig exploding on Earth Day, the administration taking over a week to respond to the crisis while the oil gushed, and then sending SWAT teams out there (not before they sent attorneys). If anything, Rush was questioning the type and timing of the adminstration’s response to the rig explosion, and not that the administration plotted the explosion itself!
Here is exactly what Rush said on April 29:
RUSH: Wow. All right, so SWAT teams, we’re sending big sis down there, Janet Napolitano, to look at all the valves and stuff, make sure they’re properly greased. He-he-he-he. Ahem. And Lisa Jackson is doing the same thing. So obviously the regime is open to the idea that this is not an accident. The regime is open to the possibility that this could well have been on purpose. Don’t forget, the original Earth Day, 40 years ago, was inspired by the river in Cleveland catching fire. Forty years later, the day before Earth Day this year, the Gulf is on fire. Coincidence? Jury’s still out. The regime is on the case, soon to tell us what happened.
I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig. Since they’re sending SWAT teams down there now this changes the whole perspective of this. Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing here.
You will note that Rush himself admits that he never even suspected foul play until the administration announced it was sending out a SWAT team. Why would one be sent out to an explosed oil rig unless the Obama administration suspected criminal or terroristic involvement? But the Obamedia from Matthews to Colbert to Behar twisted Rush’s words and/or put new words in his mouth in order to impugn him.
I don’t think Rush is wrong at all to think out loud about the timing. His prediction of anti-oil rhetoric was borne out when eventaully folks like the loony RFK, Jr. and Ahhnold the governator were declaring, “That’s it. No more oil drilling! It’s too dangerous.” Plus, all this was set against the background of the c(r)ap-and-tax bill.
This is a conspiracy theory lefties should appreciate! Compared to all the conspiracies propogated by the Democrat-media complex about the Bush administration and 9/11, the Bush administration and the War in Iraq, and the Bush administration and Hurricane Katrina, this one is a no-brainer.
Again, like Rush I’m not accusing the Obama administration of plotting the explosion although I am questioning both the type and timing of their response. And I’m wondering—as Rush did—whether or not this curious sequence of events is coincidental.
Anyway, Rush is in trouble with the mainstream media for another thing: for the claim that is oil is natural just like water is (!) and for saying we shouldn’t do anything to clean up the spill because the ocean will do it itself.
How callous. How uncaring.
Except for one small problem: Rush didn’t say those things either (the second part, that is - that we shouldn’t do anything about it.)
Here is what Rush said, also on April 29:
Our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer has just sent me something. I’ve been wondering about this. He must have been reading my mind. We’ve got 5,000 barrels a day being spilled from the rig, and Dr. Spencer looked into it. … There’s natural seepage into oceans all over the world from the ocean floor of oil—and the ocean’s pretty tough, it just eats it up. Dr. Spencer looked into this. You know the seepage from the floor of the Gulf is exactly 5,000 barrels a day, throughout the whole Gulf of Mexico now. …
You do survive these things. I’m not advocating don’t care about it hitting the shore or coast and whatever you can do to keep it out of there is fine and dandy, but the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and was left out there. It’s natural. It’s as natural as the ocean water is.
So there you have it. Two items that the Obamedia has gone batty with for days impugning Rush for saying, except he never said them.
Nope, no liberal media bias here!
Here is Rush addressing the media frenzy and trying to set the record straight. The first clip is from Tuesday May 4; the second one from Wednesday the 5th:
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
Happy Tax Day! I attended my local Tea Party with about 100 other people in historic Flemington, NJ. There was at least one "crasher" who was carrying a sign that read: "Bring back George W. Bush and really trash the Constitution!" Clever.
Anyway, here is the latest report from the Media Research Center on media bias and the Tea Party movement.
In the first hour of Friday’s show, Mark made the case that the upcoming resignation of SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens may have dire consequences for the future of the country.
Convinced that Stevens’ resignation was deliberately timed (in order that an ultra-leftist president to fill with a like-minded judge), Mark recalls some of the nation’s most disastrous and Constitution-twisting decisions made by a mere 5-4 SCOTUS vote. Two of them were the doing of Justice Stevens himself:
(1) The decision to allow the EPA to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide, a newly-declared pollutant, and
(2) the decision to grant terrorist detainees held at Camp G’tmo certain civil rights they were not entitled to, which interfered with President Bush’s legitimate war-making powers and which to this day jeopardizes our national security.
Mark argues that a left-wing ideologue like our current president would no doubt nominate justices that would make Stevens look conservative by comparison. Therefore, as a plan of action, he demands that Congressional Republicans do everything possible to block any Obama nomination. He warns them, as well as us his audience, not to gratuitously play “nice guy” just to curry favor with the Democrats or media. He argues that if Republicans need to filibuster or obstruct, then they should do so with full force—reminding us that the precedent for such actions was set by the Democrats, such as the “Borking” Ted Kennedy in 1987 and the pompous Chucky Schmucky Schumer during the Bush years.
In short: If Obama gets an ultra-liberal activist justice on the Supreme Court, it would another huge nail in the coffin of this nation. This is a time for Republicans to show their backbones, even more so than during the government-run health (s)care ordeal. They must block at all costs!
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
UPDATED 5:25 PM: The Big Bureaucracy blog has some nice pix of Kaczynski and his wife, also killed in this morning's plane crash, with George W. and Laura Bush.
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.
… 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]:
Not 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.
Despite noevidence whatsoever, Democrat politicians and their willing lib media dupes spread the rumor that the right-wing talk-radio circuit is promoting extremism, violence, and even murder.
Now we have a genuine instance of vile, vitriolic hate speech being spewed by a left-wing talker and where’s the lib media? (Must still be looking for those non-existent Tea Parties who shouted n****r 15 times at black Congressmen.)
As the mainstream media hyperventilate over what is now regularly being referred to as rightwing hate speak, liberal talk radio host Mike Malloy Friday actually called for conservative talkers Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly to commit suicide.
“You rat bastards are going to cause another Murrah federal building explosion,” said Malloy. “[M]aybe at that point Beck will do the honorable thing and blow his brains out.”
He disgustingly continued, “Maybe at that point, Limbaugh will do the honorable thing and just gobble up enough—enough Viagra that he becomes absolutely rigid and keels over dead.”
And continued, “Maybe then O’Reilly will just drink a vat of that poison he spews out on America every night and choke to death” (YouTube audio embedded below the fold, h/t Brian Maloney).
Incidentally, where the heck is Mike Malloy even broadcasting from anyway? Didn’t his failed hate-radio station Air America go off the air a few months ago? He must be in his basement.
Not surprisingly it wouldn’t be the first time an Air America host called or someone’s death. In 2004 the loathsome Randi Rhodes recommended doing to George W. Bush what Michael Corleone in “The Godfather, Part II” does to his brother:
“Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw! (imitating the sound of a gunshot). Works for me.”
See this 2006 article by Jeff Jacoby for more examples of violent, murderous anti-Republican hate speech from the left. If you haven’t heard of these instances then congratulations, mainstream media: You’ve done your part in keeping the electorate ignorant and uninformed.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: Having listened to virtually every show Rush Limbaugh has broadcasted in nearly nine years, I have never heard him call for an ideological adversary to hurt or kill themselves, let alone for someone to hurt or murder them. (The only possible exception being radical Islamic terrorists). And while I am not a regular viewer of either Beck or O’Reilly, I highly doubt that they have said such things either.
The bottom line is this: Rush, Beck, and O’Reilly’s crime is that they say things and have points of view with which Democrats/lefties disagree. And for the ohhhh-so-tolerant and open-minded left, that alone is tantamount to “hate speech.” End of story. But here you have an authentic example of pure, unadulterated, unbridled, vicious, and violent hate, and so far only crickets chirping from the supposed watchdogs of hate speech in the mainstream media.
If the mainstream media refuses to condemn this instance of actual left-wing hate speech, rather than reporting and ginning up stories of non-existent right-wing hate speech, it is either because:
(a) They actually agree with the left-wing hate speech and therefore feel no need to condemn it.
(b) They’re a bunch of freaking hypocrites who believe that only their free speech is sacred and above reproach.
(c) No one, except perhaps for Milloy’s mother, is even aware that this piece of excrement is even still on the air.
Recent Comments