"This was a mass of confusion, hypocrisies, lies, and distortions, and a failed attempt by a failed president to attach himself to America's greatness when he wouldn't recognize it if it slapped him upside the head!"
That pretty much sums up Rush's analysis of President Hope&Change's SOTU STFU speech on Tuesday:
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
I hear people keep asking if liberals/Democrats really believe the crap they spew daily. For instance, are the Democrat-media complex aware of their hypocrisy as they credit President Hope&Change for the killing of Muammar Qaddafi when several months ago — and remember : this operation was only to take “days, not weeks” — they were dutifully parroting the president’s promise that U.S. troops were not directly involved in the Libyan invasion?
Does President Hope&Change even care what a hypocrite he looks like when, after the Democrat-media complex blamed the likes of Sarah Palin and right-wing radio for creating an air of “incivility,” he goes around the country praising figures who call his ideological opponents “sons of bitches” and “barbarians at the gate,” and voices his support for the hate-filled, violent and destructive Occupy Wall Street?
Does Veep Biden realize what an imbecile he looks like when he accuses Republicans of being responsible for violent crimes and robberies in cities like Flint, Michigan when it has precisely been liberal Democrats like Biden who for 40+ freaking years have enacted policies that have aided and abetted such crimes and coddled their perpetrators?
Does Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid realize what a moron he looks like when he actually states with a straight face that the private sector is doing fine, that it’s the public sector that needs rescuing? (Oh did you hear, this week Washington, D.C. became the nation’s richest city.)
Do the DBF* media realize what blatantly biased Democrat mouthpieces they are when they continue to act as cheerleaders for the hateful, violent, extremist Occupy protests while at the same time smearing the peaceful, patriotic Tea Party as such?
Do the “fleabaggers” attending the Occupy protests realize (or even care) that, if they are truly angry about the state of the economy and unemployment in this country, they are aiming their rage at the wrong targets?
Do the Occupiers realize what hypocrites they are when they are joined by multi-millionaires like Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Russell Simmons, and Kanye West? Multi-millionaires
Yes, to be a liberal Democrat means to occupy a world irrevocably divorced from reality and to act like an utter hypocrite.
But while all the above are examples of this, the one that takes the cake is the Democrat-media complex’s treatment of Herman Cain. For seven years now, they have worshiped Barack Hussein Obama like a god and willingly ignored (or openly celebrated) his radical Marxist-socialist past.
And anyone who had the audacity to criticize President Golden Calf, from Rush Limbaugh to the Tea Party, were smeared as hateful racists who “just don’t like a black man in the White House.” The news media like the NY Times and MSNBC still say it. Self-appointed spokespeople for the black community like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say it. And celebrity blowhards like Jeneane Garofalo, Joy Behar, Harry Belafonte, Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson say it.
Liberal/Democrats’ Public Enemy #1
So now that Herman Cain is hitting the top of the GOP polls, what do all these wizards of smart have to say? First, political genius Jeneane Garofalo told an approving Keith Olbermann that the Tea Party was supporting Cain simply to hide their racism. Karl Rove, she went on to say, keeps his racism very covert. Which is weird since Rove is an establishment “Beltway” Republican and is most likely not even backing a Tea Party conservative like Cain, just as he was not supporting a Sarah Palin candidacy.
O.K., whatever helps you sleep at night, Jeneane.
But what is the most hypocritical is how the Democrat-media complex are themselves treating Herman Cain. All the racism and condescension and hostility they projected upon Obama’s critics they are now all overtly enacting upon Cain!
On MSNBC Lawrence O’Donnell conducted a thoroughly insulting, abusive and condescending interview with Cain. (To its credit, the left-leaning Atlantic called O’Donnell out on that.)
Even more outrageously, people have called Cain—a black man, mind you—a “bigot” and a “racist.” (Wait, I didn’t think black people could be racists. I’m so confused!) Among those hurling those accusations are the Obama-worshiping NY Times, the Obama-worshiping Time Magazine, and the Obama-worshiping NY Times again.
Democrat strategist Cornell Belcher has even called into question the authenticity of Cain’s blackness, as has Princeton’s most humiliating hire, “Professor” Cornel West and PBS’s affirmative action hire Tavis Smiley. Hugo Chávez’s pal Harry Belafonte has called him a “bad apple” and a “false Negro.”
A nice Yahoo! News contributor even declares that Herman Cain’s existence proves that “minorities can be racist too.” (Isn’t that nice? I wonder where this cupcake was when Obama was palling around with Malik Zulu “Kill Cracker Babies!” Shabbazz and the New Black Panthers. Where is she while Obama’s A.G. Eric Holder has made it the official policy of the DOJ not to pursue cases with black defendants such as the aforementioned New Black Panthers?)
It’s already started, people. Just as Sarah Palin was the target of the most hateful, sexist, misogynist, and violent rhetoric from the Democrat-media complex, so is Herman Cain already getting the “lynch the n*gger” treatment from the same people. And it’s going to get worse and worse.
Just sit back and watch the racism continue to come from the party of slavery, KKK, and Jim Crow from now until 2012. Herman Cain is on a roll and if there’s one thing the Democrat Party can’t stand, it’s a black man who’s left the plantation. If Herman Cain happens to win the GOP nomination and then capture the White House, watch the Democrats expose their hate and racism even more.
Related reading: Cain in the Cross-Hairs (Robert Stacy McCain)
*DBF = Democrat-b*tt-f**king
Ya know, sometimes the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart gets it right. In fact, I’ve even commended him on this blog when he does.
This, however, is not one of these times. Wednesday night he wondered out loud why conservatives were criticizing the Occupy Wall Street protests now going on nationwide, arguing:
I don’t get it! Here’s a group of Americans, disenchanted, railing against big government bailouts, angry because they played by the rules, worked hard, now they’re in debt from student loans and they’re unemployed… I mean, look, if this thing turns into throwing trash cans into Starbucks windows, nobody’s going to be down with that. We all love Starbucks.
But these protesters, how are they not like the Tea Party? Alright, some of them, you know, smoke and have pants made out of pot. So call them the THC Party. Aren’t these folks real citizens with real problems? Aren’t they also speaking for America?
I guess an adequate proficiency in criticial thinking skills was not a requirement for Stewart’s position at Comedy Central.
OK, Jon, really? You actually need it explained to you how OWS is not like the Tea Party? Other than at the former they’re smoking lots of weed. Fine …
Of course, I’m not the first one to note the obiously stark contrasts between OWS and TP. Wednesday morning, even before Stewart’s broadcast, my girl Ann (Coulter) wrote:
I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.
No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want—as is typical of mobs. They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate “Wall Street.” You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government.
This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore—which the protesters also did this week.
But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd—besides the smell of patchouli—is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic. …
The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.
The Tea Party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC’s Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another Tea Party in response to Obama’s plan to bail-out irresponsible mortgagers.
The tea partiers didn’t arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They’re perfectly happy with the original.
Tea partiers didn’t block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama’s unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.
Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.
In the two years following the movement’s inception, the Tea Party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy’s seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey, and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year’s election. …
So, if I may humbly pick up where Coulter left off, here are just a few way that OWS is completely different from the TP:
1. The Tea Party’s key demand is to restore the size and reach of government to that enshrined by the Framers in the Constitution. The Tea Party wants lower taxes, less regulation, less federal spending, and less intervention by the federal government into citizen’s private lives and businesses. To reiterate, the Tea Party’s rule book is the U.S. Constitution; they want to restore America to what it was supposed to be, as prescribed by the Framers. Thus, the Tea Party’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely American.
By stark contrast, the demands of OWS are for more taxes, more regulation, more federal spending (on them, of course), and more government intervention in people’s private lives and businesses (not theirs of course, just those of the eeeeevil rich).
Have you even seen a reference to the Founding Documents at an OWS? Of course not. Then there would be no room to display to Marx and Lenin literature. If you listen to any of the myriad demands of OWS attendees, it is clear they seek a revolution (their words, not mine) and start from scratch based on a Marxist-socialist model. Thus, OWS’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely un-American. They are not, as Jon Stewart ridiculous suggested “speaking for America.”
2. The Tea Party consists predominantly of the nation’s producers, those who own businesses and employ people, older citizens who have worked their entire lives to secure a home and retirement but who are seeing the value of their investments plummet and the financial security of their offspring diminish. They are, as Obama likes to say, “working Americans.” They value success and don’t want to see it punished—by the government or anyone.
On the other hand, The so-called occupants of Wall Street are primarily aging hippies, avowed Marxists and socialists, professional protesters like MoveOn.org and Code Pink, and tattooed, multiple-earringed, rainbow-haired twentysomethings who in all their years of college apparently never learned one single damn thing about how the economy works. They resent success and exist precisely to see it punished.
3. One can safely guess Tea Partiers are mostly members of the 53% who pay some sort of the share of the nation’s income tax burden. From them you’ll hear messages of personal responsibility, hard work, and absolute moral standards that are essential for a prosperous civil society.
On the other hand, despite their martyr-like “99%” moniker, it would be safe to say that OWS participants are part of the 47% of Americans who receive rather than contribute to the income tax burden of the U.S. They are members of your quintessential entitlement generation, having been reared in a liberal-dominated educational system rooted in self-esteem, multiculturalism, and a “whatever feels right is right” code of morality. Their sense of personal responsibility is as developed as the horns growing out of my Jewish head.
4. Whereas the Tea Party was falsely accused of being corporate-funded conservative-media-backed “astroturf,” when it is a legitimely grassroots movement, there’s evidence that OWJ has big-powered and big-moneyed support, including unions and Hollywood useful idiots like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon.
5. As documented by Brent Bozell and the folks at NewsBusters, the peaceful assemblies known as the Tea Party have been fallaciously depicted by the mainstream media as violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs.
By stark contrast, the actually violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs called OWS have been championed by the MSM as the nation’s most beautiful display of democracy in action. The blatantly biased culprits include the NY Times, CNN, NBC, the NY Times again, NBC again, ABC and the NY Times yet again.
6. The Tea Party was (and still is) relentlessly smeared by the highest officials in the federal government. A prime example is Nancy Pelosi. Keeping his own hands clean, Obama gleefully allowed then-House Majority Speaker to swing mercilessly at them. First, she accused them of being “astroturf” being funded by big-moneyed people. Then, she likened them to Nazis and spun public tales about seeing swastikaaaaahs. She mocked them in March, 2010, as she emerged from the Capitol building upon the passage of the Obama(S)care bill, wielding that huge gavel and cackling like the Wicked Witch of the West as she walked through an understandably angry crowd. She also said the Tea Party’s supposedly violent rhetoric reminded her of the social unrest that occurred in San Francisco in 1978, the year gay mayor Harvey Milk was murdered.
The actually violent, physically threatening OWS? Politico reports:
“God bless them for their spontaneity,” Pelosi told reporters. “It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.” Queen Nancy also said, “The focus is on Wall Street and justifiably so,” Pelosi said. “The message of the American people is that no longer … will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street.”
Actually, the focus on Wall Street is not justified, San Fran Nan. Rather, the correct message is that the recklessness of you and your fellow Democrats in Congress and the White House is what has caused massive joblessness on Main Street.” That was the message of the Tea Party, of course, and you have spent the past two years smearing and libeling them.
Veep Joe Biden has also recently smeared the Tea Party as “barbarians at the gate” in the presence of none other than the Community-Organizer-in-Chief himself. That was at the same event where Union thugster Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., said they needed to “take the sons of bitches out” and that those present were Obama’s army that were ‘ready to march,” also to Obama’s approval. So much for that New Civility Obama preached about this January in Tucson.
What about the malcontents at OWS? Yesterday Obama incredibly legitimized them by declaring that they “expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”
No, that would be the Tea Party, you a-hole. (Oooooo, someone better let AttaaaaackWaaaaatch know I just called the president an a-hole!)
7. As far as I know, no one at a Tea Party has called for the targets being beheaded (compliments of Hollywood actress and “comedienne” Rosanne Barr) or eaten.
I don’t believe a Tea Partier has suggested people kill their parents either, as did this clearly frustrated gay guy at OWS. While the Tea Party is accused of violent, hateful rhetoric despite no substantive evidence, the violent rhetoric of OWS is boldly on display.
Hell, even their name contains “occupy,” which is a military term meaning to overtake by means of physical force!
8. As far as I know, no throng of Tea Partiers has blocked traffic or overtaken bridges, nor have they started brawls with police and gotten pepper-sprayed and arrested on masse. This, of course, has been happening nationwide at OWS protests.
9. As far as I know, no Tea Partiers have blamed the Jews for our economic mess or hurled antisemitic slurs at people, such as at least four which have occurred at OWS rallies.
10. As far as I know, none of the lovely ladies of the Tea Party movement have gone topless or in bras to make their points. If, however, you’d like to see young ladies publicly brandishing their bras or bearing their breasts for their cause, please head to your nearest OWS protest [h/t Mike Haltman at the Political Commentator].
So there you are, Jon Stewart. Merely ten of the myriad ways Occupy Wall Street is nothing like the Tea Party. Put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.
And for those of you at OWS who need a job, there might be a spot for you over at Comedy Central. Apparently, having a properly functioning brain is not a job requirement.
Yom Kippur y’all. I is outa here!
I haven't blogged about the fascinating teacher union protests in Wisconsin. There's a lot of good writing out there already and I'd just be reinventing the wheel. El Rushbo has been on top of this story from the beginning and on Tuesday the (22nd) he made this on-the-mark comments.
In this clip from the 2nd hour Rush discusses the American people's rejection of the Democrats' overreach for power and how Wisconsin is just another example of it. He also exposes the teachers' (or at least the union's) hypocrisy when they claim they're for "the little guy" and "the children," as well as the cowardice of Wisconsin's Democrat lawmakers for fleeing the state rather than taking on their responsibilities. He also castigates Obama for siding with the greedy union over the cash-strapped citizenry and laments the dramatic diminution of standing the U.S. has suffered under his presidency.
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
What must it be like to live in the world of a liberal/Democrat? A conservative/Republican merely looks at Obama funny and they're branded as a racist bigot everywhere from the pages of the NY Times to the news shows of CNN, MSNBC and the networks.
But when real racism shows its ugly head on the Democrat left -- and it always happens on the Democrat left -- it's like it never happened.
Are liberals just living in a fantasy world? Or are they that blind from their own hatred and intolerance that they are completely incapable of self-awareness?
In the past few months, black Congressman Allen West (R-FL) has been smeared with impunity in the liberal media. And a couple weeks ago dozens of "progressive" ralliers are caught on video gleefully wishing that black conservative Justice Clarence Thomas be lynched and/or "sent back to the fields."
But you wouldn't know that from following the Democrat-media complex.
Enter former Godfather's Pizza CEO turned radio host Herman Cain. Cain is a rising star in the conservative movement and very close to throwing his hat in the ring for the 2012 presidential run. Before this black man flies too high, however, the oh-so-tolerant left mobilizes to keep him down. Just like Thomas, West, Condi Rice, etc., etc.
Earlier this week Cain spoke at CPAC. (watch the fantastic speech at The Right Scoop.) Liberals, never ones to deal with reality well, couldn't understand how a black man could speak at a conservative convention without being spat upon or lynched or something like that. So here's how one prominent liberal website explains it:
This is your tolerant left on display, people.
Like I suggested above, to be a liberal is to live in an upside-down fantasy world. Up is down. Black is white. Right is wrong. And wrong is justified. And so you got Frank Rich at the ever-devolving NY Times can tilting at the windmill of imaginary Islamophobia while actual violence and hatred from Muslims toward Americans and all non-Muslims increases.
Similarly, you have the NAA(L)CP and media outlets like MSNBC decrying the non-existent racism of the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and other such bogeymen. Yet when actual racism (and misogyny and violence and anti-Semitism, etc.) is spewed from the Democrat left virtually on a daily basis, don't come looking for these the self-appointed protectors of civil rights to cry foul. When liberalism is your agenda first and last, principle, integrity and common decency all go by the wayside.
Look for more racism against Herman Cain in the future. As long as strong, eloquent and successful black conservatives like him continue to gain national prominence, the racist Democrat left will be there to keep him down.
More reading at Power Line.
Ed Morrissey at HotAir.
The Tuscon massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.
They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.
Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence.
And don’t let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in theirnaked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.
They want to play tu quo que in the middle of a national tragedy? They asked for it. They got it.
***
The progressive climate of hate: A comprehensive illustrated primer in 8 parts:
I. PALIN HATE
II. BUSH HATE
III. MISC. TEA PARTY/GOP/ANTI-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE HATE
IV. ANTI-CONSERVATIVE FEMALE HATE
V. LEFT-WING MOB HATE — campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists, & unions
VI. OPEN-BORDERS HATE
VII. ANTI-MILITARY HATE
VIII. HATE: CRIMES — the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection
...
It’s a lie that might have once been true: Republicans are the party of the rich; Democrats represent the little guy.
Not so today. Not for quite some time now.
Consider the daughters of two former presidents, one Democrat, one Republican:
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.
Recent Comments