As You Survey The Mess Our Culture Is In, You’ve Got To Ask: ‘How Did It Come To This?’

There was a scene in the Lord of the Rings in which King Theoden - finally realizing that a vast horde of darkness is coming against him and that his people’s situation is now all but hopeless - asks:

Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

I ask that question of America.  The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.  In the Middle Earth of Sauron and in the America of Obama.  And the only “Return of the King” to complete the LotR trilogy will be the physical return of Christ Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords.  And that will occur only after the world has gone through seven literal years of hell on earth otherwise known as the Tribulation.

How did it come to this?

First, liberals are the most intolerant people in America.  As you read this article, realize that our crisis stems from profound liberal intolerance.  And the worst thing of all about them is the way they continually demonize their opponents as “intolerant” for the speck of intolerance in the conservatives’ eyes when there’s a giant log of intolerance in the liberals’ eyes.

Liberals are hypocrites, period.  The quintessential ingredient to liberalism is abject moral and intellectual hypocrisy.  It’s why Al Gore sells his television station to a pro-terrorist entity owned by a filthy oil emirate.  It’s why Al Gore tried to structure the deal so he wouldn’t have to pay the higher tax rate that Obama wanted and he publicly campaigned for.  And it is most certainly why liberals continually depict themselves as the most tolerant people when in reality they are by far and away the most intolerant people of all.

Pew: Liberals most intolerant online
posted at 11:00 am on March 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates.  Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves.  Does that sound like tolerance to you?  A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

• 10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
• 9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
• 8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
• 5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
• 4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

It’s not even all that close, as their chart shows:

Andrew Malcolm has some fun with the implications:

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy  — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter.  I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements.  I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life.  Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing.  I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.

Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too.  It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals.  While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.

Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.

Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.

“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”

Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?

Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative?  Michael Medved says they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.

Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?

Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.

But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.

Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine.  Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out.  They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice.  The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.

Don’t worry, kids at home.  Liberals say that conservatives are intolerant; and if anybody else disagrees with liberals, well, those people are all intolerant, too.  And according to liberals – who are the high priests of tolerance – it is perfectly okay to be tolerant and even fascist to intolerant people.

You need to understand how we got to be in such a cultural mess, where 88% of Americans think one way but the 12% who think practically opposite the majority have been able to pretty much make up all the rules.  And our society is about to collapse because their rules are evil and frankly fascist to go along with failed.

Let us return to the main point: the secret for the collapse that will plunge us into a collapse unlike ever seen in history is liberal fascist intolerance.

I have come to believe that we are in the last days before the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  Based on that view, I understand that God prophetically warned man in His Word that as we neared the end, man would increasingly turn away from God and fall into the errors that He warned us about.  I also understand that the same God who told us it would happen 2,000 years ago and beyond is in control, and is allowing the last days to finally come upon the world.  I’ll say that from the outset.

I’m talking to a lot of Christians who have used the word “despair” to describe how they feel about the way America is going.  They somehow felt the world would just keep getting better and better and of course the exact opposite is happening.  And I want you to understand that, for me, Bible prophecy is a great comfort.  Again, I see so many signs that God predicted as a sign the last days were coming to pass and it makes me all the more certain and confident in my faith in God.  The U.S. is now over $225 trillion in actual debt when you add in the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  It is growing by about one trillion dollars every single month.  And you ought to be able to see the signs that if we fall down we will NEVER get back on our feet the way we did in the years following the Great Depression (recognizing that FDR stalled that recovery by seven years according to economists) with his failed liberal policies.  We were the most productive nation on earth at that time in terms of manufacturing; we were a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation at that time; our citizens were NOT consuming mass welfare the way we overwhelmingly are now, nor would they have stood for the kind of sloth that passes for normalcy today; and we had just won a world war and were frankly the only economy on earth that hadn’t been destroyed.  When we fall now – and we WILL fall in the next twenty years – we will shatter into pieces and those pieces will never be reconstituted.  America will be a relatively insignificant banana republic or group of banana republics.  The day our economy crashes we will lose the status that has allowed us to accumulate such a super massive debt – our status as the world’s reserve currency - and it will all be over for us.

America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy.  All the other major nations and regions – such as Russia, Europe and Asia ARE mentioned.  America has largely already guaranteed that it simply will not matter in the coming years.  We had a vote and literally determined to follow the path of the Dodo bird to certain extinction.  There are famously nine stages of civilization.  Last year we were in the seventh, but this election put us over the top of number eight - we voted for entitlements and to become a dependency-based society.  In our final age, bondage will mean bondage of the very worst kind: bondage to the coming Antichrist.

I neither take comfort nor rejoice in that sad, tragic and pathetic end for America.  I rejoice and take comfort in the fact that God has a plan for His people – and I am one of His people.  I need neither weep nor worry.  My treasure is in heaven and I don’t have to fear how much Obama or the beast who will succeed him will take away on earth.

I have another home to go to – and it will be a far grander land than this one ever was even in its brightest day of promise.  And frankly, my faith in the next land (Heaven) grows stronger even as this one (America) grows weaker and weaker.

But why does it happen?  How did we sink this low?

Our modern media descended from the propaganda of World Wars One And Two.  Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays were men who believed that people could and frankly SHOULD be manipulated.  They believed that a class of cultural elites should anoint themselves to serve as gatekeepers and ensure that their secular humanist worldview and values would be advanced and rival worldviews and values would be defeated.  You simply cannot read the writings of these fathers of journalism and media elitism and not see that common thread in their work.

What I’m saying is that when it comes to journalism and modern media, you cannot say that conservatives ever “lost control” over these institutions – because we never had any control over them to begin with.  They were never anything other than secular humanist and liberal progressive in orientation.  And all it took was for the technology to become sufficiently powerful and all-encompassing that their domination of the media would translate to their being able to dictate to mass culture what to think and what to believe.  And here we are.

The power of media was used against Christianity in 1960 with an incredibly dishonest piece of propaganda titled Inherit the Wind (see also here).  And the order of magnitude in terms of media manipulation has grown by giant leaps and bounds in the over fifty years since.  Most people – the 88 percent above – understand that they are being routinely lied to with outright propaganda.  The problem is that even though they know they’re being brainwashed, they’re STILL being brainwashed.  The media is altering people’s perceptions much the way the constant ocean tide wears away even the rocks let alone the sand; it is the inevitable result of being washed over with lies again and again and again and again, ad infinitum.

How did the secular humanist left gain control over academia?  Christians unwittingly played a giant part in that.  Do you know how many of the first universities in America were founded by Christians?  How about pretty much ALL of them.  Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  That trend continued long into America’s journey as a nation: I just got through reading an excellent article about the incredibly enormous role Christian churches and denominations played in the establishment of virtually all of the schools, universities and hospitals in the American West.  Education was almost ENTIRELY up to Christian churches and denominations.

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” [...]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us.  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Strike three for conservatives and for the United States of America was when liberals seized control of the government.  They didn’t do it by winning elections; they did it by stacking the government employees with leftwing union thuggery.

FDR said that government employee unions were unAmerican.  And of course he was right.  But as far to the left as FDR was in the 1930s and 1940s, he didn’t even begin to hold a candle to just how radically far the Democrat Party would go to to undermine the United States of America.  FDR said:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Unions are completely dead in America in the private sector, where they have killed jobs and crushed entire industries.  But they dominate government employees.  And if Mitt Romney and Republicans were to have won the election, they would not have been able to significantly change the way government “works” (in quotes because in the vast majority of respects, government doesn’t “work” at all).  That is because virtually every level and layer of government “service” is as dominate by liberals as the kitchen floor of a filthy house is dominated by cockroaches.

You’ve got the government as an entity unto itself whose primary purpose is to create more government, more government jobs and more government workers with more lavish government pensions and benefits that are borne on the backs of the taxpayer.

The aim of the Democrat Party and the aim of the government unions is identical: to explode the size and power of government and to make government employees an elite, privileged class of masters over the rest of society.  Their collective goal is to attain government power that allows them to dominate forever by being able to be able to pick the winners and losers and the victims and villains of society.

And they have largely attained that power.  Once a government bureaucracy is created, it can never be undone; the liberals who own government by what FDR said was an immoral tactic have never allowed it and WILL never allow it.

There’s a reason for this that goes to what I said above about how Christians trained their people to go into the mission field and liberals trained their people to go into government: and that is, for liberals, serving government is tantamount and in fact even greater than serving God.  Liberals have simply flooded government and there is no practical way to purge the influence that even FDR said was illegitimately obtained.

There are other reasons that our culture became toxic and doomed, of course.

“Political correctness” is a huge factor.

Political correctness is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a vast, coordinated effort on the part of the secular humanist, socialist left to change Western culture as we know it by  using rhetoric to redefine it. Early Marxists in Russia designed this game plan long ago and liberals continue to execute the tactic today: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

With the “news” media, with academia and with government at their beck and call, to go along with liberal Hollywood culture, it was easy to tell people what to think.

Liberals have used boycotts to devastating effect; while conservatives say boycotts are wrong and refuse to call for them.  The result of this disparity is that our businesses are vulnerable and exposed to incredible pressure from the left, while liberal businesses are completely safe.

I think of two recent examples of how the difference between liberalism and conservatism works in the form of two athletes.

Phil Mickelson “sinned” by saying that the tax burden that Democrats were demanding he pay – basically 63 percent of everything he makes – was far too high, and that he was fleeing the Socialist Republic of California as a result.  Do you think it’s unreasonable for Mickelson to say that he disagrees that Obama is 63 percent responsible for his success and that he’s only at most 37 percent responsible for his success?  This gets us right back to Obama’s, “you didn’t build that, government did” argument.  Mickelson was so viciously demonized that he went out something like four times to mea culpa and say he was terribly wrong to say stuff like that.  On my count he came out four separate times begging people to please quit hating him for believing he had a right to express his views in Amerikkka.

The second recent example is San Francisco 49er player Chris Culliver, who expressed his opinion that he would not personally feel comfortable having an open homosexual player on the team.  And of course, he was quickly broken as liberals demanded he literally be fired for expressing his views.

How many celebrities have been celebrated and adored by the liberal media culture for saying that celebrities should “pay their fair share” with high taxes and that homosexuality is so wonderful it’s even better than sliced bread?  Were they forced to do a perp walk and apologize for their remarks?  Not a chance.

You see, here’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Conservatives believe that people – even liberals – have a right to express their views and beliefs.  Conservatives believe that our nation with its freedoms and liberty should not persecute people merely for expressing a viewpoint that they disagree with.  Liberals, on the other hand, are fascists who brutally and viciously attack anyone who doesn’t bow down to their agenda.  You do NOT have the freedom of self-expression if you use that freedom to say something that liberals don’t like.  They will come after you with stunning hatred if you try to do so.

Liberals are people who routinely shout down everyone with whom they disagree.  You do not have the right to say anything that offends them.  They will simply come after you in full-fledged fascisti mode.

Genuine tolerance is a weapon that liberals have turned against conservatives.  As liberal activist Saul Alinsky – who devoted his book to Satan - said:

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

And of course liberals like Al Gore have no “book of rules” to have to live up to.  They can preach radical environmentalism and demonize oil for years.  They can say that people ought to pay their “fair share” of taxes.  And then – like Al Gore – they can sell out to a terrorist “journalism” network funded entirely by oil money and try to structure the deal so they don’t have to pay Obama’s sky-high tax rates.  But because they always parroted the liberal vision – no matter how hypocritically – they’re on hallowed ground with the vast majority of the propaganda machine a.k.a. journalism in America.

Liberals are currently decrying guns, because everybody knows that human beings are merely farm animals incapable of exercising personal responsibility or self-restraint.  Guns must be taken away from the law-abiding even if it makes them utterly helpless in a deteriorating society because that’s the only solution that liberals will allow.  I submit that there aren’t too many guns; there are too many abortions.  There aren’t to many guns; there’s too much pornography.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too little respect for the dignity of human life that the abortion culture and the pornography culture that liberals fought so hard to institute guarantees.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too much lawless disregard for justice that liberals (the ACLU being your classic example) have produced throughout our legal culture.

We kicked God’s butt right out of our schools, banned prayer, banned the Ten Commandments with its “Thou shalt not murder” and we’re just astonished that the children who grew up godless in liberal indocrination facilities a.k.a. our public school system would actualize the disgusting hatred of life that liberalism produced in their empty souls.

And now liberals are exploiting the gun violence that their policies produced in the first place to implement their next step in the Stalinist takeover of America.

And that’s why we’ve lost.  And why the America we stood for is now basically eradicated.

And those three strikes plus are why America is going to go down and go down hard.  King Theoden ultimately won; America is ultimately going to lose and then the beast will come just as God told us would happen.  Theoden’s enemies were outside the walls; America’s enemies are very much within.

Obama Says, ‘We Don’t Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country.’ Especially People Who Start Businesses Or Risk Their Money Investing.

Put this in your, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” comment and smoke it:

Obama: ‘We Don’t Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country’
11:59 AM, Oct 5, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

President Obama, speaking in Virginia, said, “We don’t believe anybody is entitled to success in this country.”

“This  country does not just succeed when just a few are doing well at the  top,” Obama said, according to a rush transcript of the remarks. “It succeeds when the middle class gets bigger. Our economy does not  grow from the top-down, it grows from the middle-out. We do not believe  that anybody is entitled to success in this country. But we do believe  in opportunity. We believe in a country where hard work pays off and  responsibilities are rewarded and everybody is getting a fair shot and  everybody’s doing their fair share. And everybody’s paying by the same  rules. That is the country believe in. That is what we have been  fighting for the last four years. That is what we’re going to put in  place in the next four years if you reelect me as president of the United States of America.”

You see, that’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals say everybody ought to be the same, everybody ought to have their wealth redistributed and doled out to everybody else such that as Karl Marx famously stated:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

You see, conservatives don’t think so.  We think if a small business owners works a hundred hours a damn week to make his or her business successful, that business owner is entitled to his or her success.  Conservatives think if a smart investor risks his or her money on an investment that succeeds, that investor is entitled to his or her success.  We think that people who work harder or who work smarter than other people ought to be entitled to keep what they worked harder or smarter than others FOR.  In the case of rich people, we even think that rich people who worked hard their entire lives to give their children an inheritance are entitled to GIVE their kids that inheritance.  Just as we think those kids are entitled to receive what their parents worked so hard to give them.

Do you know what you ARE entitled to in America under Obama’s failed presidency?  Food stamps:

[W]e are confident that no readers will be surprised to learn that foodstamp usage for both persons and households, has jumped to a new all time record.

At 46,681,833 persons hooked on SNAP, the July number crossed the previous record posted a short month before, as the foodstamp curve continues ‘plumbing’ newer and greater heights each month.

More disturbing is that in the same month, the number of US households reliant on foodstamps rose by a whopping 99,493 to 22,541,744. Assuming a modest 2 persons per household, the increase means that more people went on Foodstamps in the month of July than found jobs (181,000 according to the latest revised NFP data). Furthermore, it appears that buying votes has become a tad more expensive in the past month. After the benefit per household dipped to a record low in April at just $275.81, this has since retraced some of its losses and is now at an inflationary $277.92. Oh well: inflation.

Adding the number of disability recipients in the month of July, which in that month rose by 20,474, and one can see why the government is quite happy with dumping this particular release long after everyone was on their way back home for the weekend.

Finally, and putting it all into perspective, since December 2007, or the start of the Great Depression ver 2.0, the number of jobs lost is 4.5 million, while those added to foodstamps and disability rolls, has increased by a unprecedented 21 million. Oh and about $7 or $8 trillion in debt. Who’s counting really.

Which is why you can bet your farm that this government-subsidized princess will be sure to vote Obama:

I wish I could go to the home of every liberal (like a liberal version Santa Claus) and take away every single toy their kids come out of the house with.  A liberal’s kid comes out with a new bike, I’m going to take that bike.  That kid isn’t entitled to that bike.  And I’m going to redistribute it to some other poor kid.  If a liberal’s kid comes out with the hot new toy, why, just how in the hell is that kid entitled to that?  Santa Claus is coming to town to redistribute the damn wealth.  And I’m going to make sure that every fat-assed, lazy, good-nothing sluggard gets what every hard-working person worked so hard to build.  Because I think that “you didn’t build that” and “you’re not entitled to it.”

People who work hard and suceed are FAR more entitled to what they earn than every single liberal parasite on earth combined.

Scott Walker Wins, Communists (A.K.A. Democrats) LOSE HUGE

Democrats are communists, and even the true blue state of Wisconsin has just OVERWHELMINGLY rejected their fascist tactics.

A liberal group used clear voter intimidation tactics to threaten people to vote (Democrat).  “Fascist tactics” is a technically accurate term here.

Democrats do not live in the real world, as what we just saw in Wisconsin proves.  What was the left saying not long ago???

From the überfascist publication The Nation only a couple of months ago:

The Power of Recalls in Wisconsin
John Nichols on March 17, 2012 – 8:31 AM ET

With Wisconsin recall elections looming against four Republican state senators—as well as Governor Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch—the state’s politics was thrown for another loop Friday when a targeted senator up and quit.

State Senator Pam Galloway, a Tea Party favorite and one of Walker’s steadiest backers in the legislature, announced her immediate resignation from the legislature and her decision not to contest the recall election.

The move had dramatic repercussions:

1. Republicans have lost the complete control of state government that allowed the governor to advance an austerity agenda that was defined by attacks on unions and deep cuts in public education and public services funding—along with the harshest voter ID law in the nation, a rigidly partisan redistricting of legislative districts and what critics complain has been a battering of the state’s open-government tradition.

2. State Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald, (brother of Assembly Speaker Jeff) a Walker ally who is targeted for recall, has lost his position as the dominant player in the legislature. He now must enter into a power-sharing agreement with minority leader Mark Miller, a progressive Democrats who led a historic walkout by his caucus during last year’s struggle over Walker’s labor law changes. Committee assignments will be redone to reflect what is now a 16-16 split in the Senate.

3. Governor Walker, who has threatened to call special sessions of the legislature to deal with pet projects, will now only be able to do so if he can work with the Democrats—something he has not done up to this point.

4. If, as expected, the federal courts reject the state’s redistricting plan, it could be sent back to a legislature where Democrats can now play a critical role in drawing the maps. That could result in a significant upturn in their fortunes going into this fall’s elections.

5. Republicans have lost their premier candidate in one of four state Senate recall elections that are now scheduled for May 8 primaries and a June 5 election. Galloway had raised major money and organized a campaign of consequence before announcing that family health concerns had led her to exit the legislature. Now, Democrat Donna Seidel, a popular former county official in the Wausau-area district and the assistant minority leader in the state Assembly, emerges as a clear front-runner for a seat that—if she wins—would tip the Senate to full Democratic control.

All of these changes were made possible by the recall power, which allows citizens to petition for new elections. This old progressive tool of accountability was used last summer to force a number of Republican senators who supported the Walker agenda to defend their seats.

Going into last summer’s recall votes, Republicans held a 19-14 advantage in the Senate. Two Republicans were defeated, leaving the GOP with a narrow 17-16 advantage—and giving moderate Republican Senator Dale Schultz the power to temper his party’s excesses. Now, with Galloway’s exit, the chamber goes to the 16-16 split.

After the next round of recalls, it is possible that Democrats could end up with full control of the Senate, potentially by a margin of up to 19-14—or, if Fitzgerald is defeated by upstart challenger Lori Compas, 20-13.

Additionally, a new Democratic Senate could sit with a new Democratic governor, as Walker’s recall is now all but certain to take place on the same day as the senators.

What has happened is remarkable. What could happen is historic. And the people, using the recall power afforded them by progressive reformers of a century ago, are making it happen.

I wanted to post this example of liberals claiming victory in Wisconsin before it got purged with all the rest of their bogus smack talk.

It’s time to eat your cockroach poison and start flailing around wildly on your backs, Democrats.  You just got sprayed with the nasty crap that you were so damned determined to spray on Walker and every Republican you could smear.  And this is what, the third time you’ve had your asses handed to you after previously trying to recall state senators and a judge???

Even in a blue state like Wisconsin, you just got utterly rejected.

As of my sending this out to the world, Walker is up by a massive 20 points with 40% of the precincts reporting.  And the race was called within what?  About forty minutes of the returns coming in???  In a race all the liberals were saying would go to the wire?  This is a state that Obama won by ffifteen points just a few years ago!!!

I guess voters like the guy who created tens of thousands of jobs while taking a $3.6 billion deficit that his Democrat predecessor left for him and turning it into a $150 million surplus without raising taxes.  And I guess they don’t like Democrat politicians who act like cockroaches when the lights get turned on and flee the state rather than vote.

And where was Obama?  The cowardly little political weasel was flying all over doing fundraiser after fundraiser but you could turn over every rock in Wisconsin and you wouldn’t find him supporting the recall that his cockroach minions started last year.  The Slimebag-in-Chief literally flew over the state while going from Minneapolis (where he did three fundraisers) to Illinois (where he did another three fundraisers) so the man who took more money from Wall Street than ANY POLITICIAN IN HISTORY and the man who has raised more money than any cyncial money-grubbing politician in the entire history of the human race could whore himself for more money.

How did Obama lead?  Well, it’s my understanding he sent a tweet.  I guess I’m glad Obama isn’t supporting me, because this is a guy who only knows how to support himself at other people’s expense.  If you’re a Democrat, you truly ought to be ashamed of the turd you elected.

I’ve got to just laugh my very best mocking laughter as the same Democrats who wildly cheered when Obama was raising and spending more campaign money than anyone in human history are now crying and whining that Republicans are outspending them.  It must truly suck to get hung on your own petard.

Every model that Obama’s campaign had for his path to victory counted on Wisconsin.  And that state is VERY OBVIOUSLY now in play for Mitt Romney.  Which is to say that if Obama has to even defend one of the most reliably Democrat states in the nation, well, he’s just starting to look more and more and more like Jimmy Carter.

Update, June 7: Democrats have been whining about the spending gap between Democrats and Walker, claiming something like a $7-$1 dollar difference because of all the conservative money pouring in from across the nation.  The media has widely reported this Democrat talking point.

It turns out that it’s a lie, like pretty much everything else the left says: the fact is that the same media that reported every dollar coming in from conservatives somehow omitted $21 million coming in from the unions.  Which is to say that liberals are furious that their out-of-state money wasn’t as much as the Republicans’ out-of-state money and therefore out-of-state money is anti-democratic even though they tried to raise as much of it as they could themselves.

The End of Obama Liberalism as an Intellectual Movement (For The Record, Liberalism Has ALWAYS Been Vacuous Pseudo-Intellectualism)

Well, another way to sum it up would be “Yes, we can!” and “Change you can believe in!” and (my own favorite): ”I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage… If I help [Obama], he’s gonna help me!”

May 5, 2012
The End of Obama Liberalism as an Intellectual Movement
By Carl Paulus

Over the past six months the public has watched the current liberal intellectual movement crumble as its leaders have failed to provide a tenable solution to the serious problems facing our nation. President Obama is desperately searching for a way to convince the public he should be reelected. But his liberal ideology is no longer capable of providing effective answers to the questions of the 21st century. Today’s liberalism has been reduced to an opposition movement, rather than a coherent ideological alternative to conservatism. The Democratic Party all but confirmed this notion with their latest slogan for the 2012 campaign: “Not A Republican.”

When President Obama and the Democrats used the largest majority in over three decades to pass Obamacare — despite the objections of the country — they did so because they believed that it offered a significant solution to a problem. Though it remains unpopular with a majority of citizens, at least Obamacare was introduced as a bill, debated publicly, and signed into law. However, after being rejected by the people in 2010, modern liberalism has ceased to be a serious intellectual movement, trading gimmicks and demagoguery for substantial policy initiatives. Starting with the introduction of the Ryan budget in 2011, Democrats — led by the president — have disengaged from discussing ideas and negotiating legislation. Instead, emotional rhetoric has been used to mask the evidence that liberal programs offer very little substance to move the nation forward in the modern world.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner exhibited the lack of ideas coming from the Democrats when he told House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan that the administration “doesn’t have a definitive solution” to the impending debt crisis, but that they do know that they “just don’t like” the House Republican plan. In other words, liberals have admitted that they only have the intellectual disposition to oppose Ryan rather than providing a different way forward. Democrats have become the armchair quarterbacks of public policy. They offer criticism without a workable alternative.

Liberals have abandoned policy issues as a way to intellectually combat those who disagree with them. It was not a coincidence that the Obama administration announced a plan to force Catholic institutions to go against their consciences and pay for contraception and abortifacients just three days after the White House outlined its budget for 2013. Instead of debating budgetary reforms the country desperately needs, liberals sparked a faux debate over contraception, claiming that arguments based in both the history of the Enlightenment and the founding of the nation regarding religious freedom were actually about access to contraception in general. Liberals maintain that women who work for and attend Catholic institutions are not exercising a choice to do so. In effect, they undercut the feminist movement that for decades argued that women have the capability to make their own decisions and provide for their own lifestyles, undermining an intellectual foundation they helped to create. The entire topic of contraception was brought up without any Republican, especially the presumptive nominee, talking about birth control during the campaign.

The White House sparked a month-long, superficial debate over the Republican “War on Women” in order to distract Americans from the stunning realization that President Obama is the first president in American history to have two budgets rejected unanimously by his own party in Congress. Furthermore, Democrats have controlled the Senate for nearly six years. Yet, under Harry Reid’s leadership, they have proposed a budget only once since the inauguration of President Obama and no longer even attempt to seriously negotiate a budget with Republicans. The entire discussion about the “War on Women” substantiates that modern liberalism offers no intellectual foundation for governing the United States.

The rhetoric and actions stemming from the fight over contraception might be construed as an isolated instance — a desperate president hoping to change the narrative in a cynical attempt to be reelected. Unfortunately, it was not. When Mitt Romney appeared to secure the Republican nomination, the president, with the full support of his party, reignited the discussion of the Occupy-Wall-Street inspired tax on millionaires he named the Buffett Rule. Democrats hoped to sell it to the people as significant piece of legislation. President Obama first suggested it was needed to help reduce the deficit. When that was disproven, he then said it should be enacted in the interest of “fairness.” When that fell flat the president finally maintained that the Buffett Rule was based on “an argument about how do we grow the economy in a 21st century environment.”

President Obama’s reasoning for the Buffett Rule changed for clear reasons. His attempt to add a special tax on the wealthy had little substance and was nothing more than an emotional ploy meant to appeal to the “Not Republican” liberal base. Rather than providing an intellectual foundation to tackle the numerous challenges the country faces, liberalism has deteriorated into a purely reactionary doctrine that hopes to win an election by demagoguing the wealthy. Liberals want to say that Mitt Romney’s success makes him unelectable just eight year after nominating the billionaire John Kerry for the presidency because that’s all they really have left to argue.

Over the next six months the president and his supporters are going to talk a lot about “fairness.” However, do not expect them to offer a definition of the term. Vague rhetoric about their plans, just as in 2008, will be used to conceal the lack of appreciable ideas coming from the Democratic Party. When a liberal such as Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, gets precise, the electorate is rather unkind. The reason for this is clear: emotional rhetoric about the rich not paying enough in taxes only works on the envious or guilt-ridden. Ordinary Americans are neither of those things. This is why when pollsters ask the public what the wealthy should pay in taxes they choose a lower rate than the current tax code.

Liberalism used to be a movement capable of producing ideas that could be debated both publicly and in the intellectual marketplace. Though conservatives disagreed with them, liberal ideas had to be contended with through thoughtful rebuttals produced by those, in the words of the historian Gary Nash, who “engaged in study, reflection, and speculation; purveyors of ideas.” Conservatives had to explain why our path was a better way forward than the left’s. However, today’s liberal movement offers no direction, just resistance. Modern liberals have become defined by this picture: empty chairs in a budget committee meeting that they control. Admittedly, their focus is solely on policy aimed at stirring controversy and allowing them to act as demagogues. President Obama and the current Democratic leadership have ushered in the end of liberalism as an intellectual movement because the ideas they offer are based more empty rhetoric than smart policy.

Conservatives must be wary and refuse to be pulled down into their realm of liberal inanity, even if it can be fairly funny to mock them. After all, the true unemployment rate is still in double digits and in the five minutes that it took to read this article the United States of America added 15 million dollars to the debt as we race towards a crisis. Our current problems require thoughtful solutions.

Carl Paulus, Ph.D., is a historian of American Politics and a staff assistant for the Robert Gonzalez congressional campaign in TX-14.

Liberalism is vaccuous nonsense.  Liberalism is gutless: it stands for mutually exclusive things.  Liberalism is fiscally reckless BECAUSE of its gutlessness: it demands spending that is shockingly unsustainable while it demonizes those who are doing nothing more than trying to prevent those who are trying to keep failed programs such as Medicare solvent.

Liberals are stupid people.  And they are the worst form of stupid people.

There are people who just aren’t that smart due to limitations in their genes and/or limitations in their educations.  But we’re not talking about that kind of “stupid”; rather, we are talking about a deliberate, intentional refusal by people who ought to know better to refuse to acknowledge reality.

What is “reality”?  Ultimately, it is the world as God sees it.  It is the world as it really is; the world as God ordained it to be.  Liberals ACTIVELY DESPISE that reality; and instead of looking to the Word of God for truth they look to “-isms” such as Marxism and socialism and Keynesianism for their “truth.”

History refutes them over and over and over again.  But they WILL NOT acknowledge that because they have completely immunized themselves to reality.

Liberal Calls Sarah Palin A “Cunt” A Week After Calling Her A “Dumb Twat”

All I can say is that, based on liberals rationale, conservatives should be able to call Obama a “stupid nigger” all day long.  After all, just as it’s wrong to use such hateful language toward women unless we don’t happen to like a particular woman’s political views, it’s therefore perfectly okay to use the “N” word toward a black person when you don’t agree with him or her politically.

This racist, bigoted hatred of the left isn’t new.  It is who they are and who they always have been.  It defines them.  It’s called “projection”: liberals assume that conservatives must be racist and bigoted and misogynist, because liberals are so damn racist and bigoted and misogynist.

Interestingly, given that I said conservatives have every right to call Obama a nigger now, given the left’s justification for anti-woman hatred for Sarah Palin, it is fitting that it is – as usual - LEFTISTS who are actually applying that label on Obama.

The fact that Bill Maher is still on the air is proof positive that liberals are despicable, hateful, vile hypocrites.  Because only liberals are depraved enough to watch this over-the-top despicable liberal fascist.

Bill Maher Calls Sarah Palin a “****” a Week After Calling Palin a “Dumb ****”
Monday, March 28, 2011 | Kristinn
Posted on Monday, March 28, 2011 3:50:53 PM by kristinn

A week after calling former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a “dumb t***” vulgar insult for women, comedian Bill Maher went all the way and called Palin the c-word, adding, “There’s just no other word for her.”

The Dallas Voice (The Premier Media Source for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) Texas) reporting on Maher’s appearance Sunday night at the Winnspear Opera House Sunday night, cheered Maher using the crude sexist slur against the 2008 Republican party vice presidential nominee as an act of “fearlessness”:

It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a “c***” (“there’s just no other word for her”) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.

The audience at the Winnspear was descibed by the Voice as “largely gay (and certainly gay-friendly)”, which might explain Maher’s fearlessness in attacking a conservative, Christian, married mother of five in the most vulgar, personal and sexist way.

When Maher was first being criticized for calling Palin the t-word, Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters asked:

Is the universal media hatred for this woman so pervasive that it’s now acceptable for a man to call her that?

Can the dreaded C-word be far behind?

Sadly, it didn’t take long for Sheppard to be proven right.

Last month, Slate Magazine was caught slyly calling Palin the c-word in a headline. Slate’s editor apologized after being called out by Big Journalism.

It’s really not all that hard to be right when you’re talking about liberal progressives.  Simply assume that they are as vile as possible, and then think, “If I were 95% cockroach, what would I do next?”

Lesbians, gay, bisexuals and transexuals cheered this as “fearless,” did they?  So conservatives now have every right to be similarly “fearless” and apply the same sort of bigoted hatred in labeling toward them now?  Why is it only “fearless” when a liberal displays this level of personal hatred toward a conservative?  How does it not work the other way around?

If Glenn Beck did this, there is no question that he would be fired.  And that is because conservatives are superior to liberals in every way morally possible.

These are ugly, ugly people.  They have no shame.  They have no decency.  They have no integrity.  And they have no honor.

Rush Limbaugh Discusses Ronald Reagan And Demonstrates Why Liberals Must Be Defeated Rather Than Reasoned With

I thought this was a very interesting discussion.  Here’s the transcript of it, with the response that I found most significant in bold font:

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  I, um… I’m calling because… Well, first of all, I’m a liberal, and I seriously don’t understand this, uh, Reagan idolatry on behalf of conservatives.  I’ll get… I’ll give you my reasons.  Instead of privatizing Social Security, he raised taxes. We’re all paying higher taxes today out of our paychecks every single week because he decided to save Social Security.  He –

RUSH:  Wait, wait.  Hold it.  I need to go…

CALLER: (speaking rapidly)
 
 
RUSH: Wait. Jeez.

CALLER:  The Greenspan Commission.  He signed it into law, and it raised taxes on Social Security.

RUSH:  What…? Wait, you’re talking about Reagan or Clinton?

CALLER:  I’m talking about Reagan.  Reagan did that.  He raised taxes on Social Security.  He negotiated with terrorists, sending — over and over again — arms to Iran in exchange for hostages; by contrast Jimmy Carter didn’t give an inch to the Iranians.

RUSH:  What in the world…?

CALLER:  Not an inch.  Instead Reagan (crosstalk)

RUSH:  Testing the true depth of my politeness here on this call, folks.

CALLER:  Say that again?

RUSH:  Let me ask you a question.  What do you think, given all this that you believe, when you hear Obama and the Democrats cite Reagan as they have been doing since about a week before the State of the Union?

CALLER:  It’s funny you ask that.  Because as a liberal I think Obama owes his presidency to Reagan.  They’re both kinda stuffed suits that say one thing and then do another.  Obama hasn’t been anywhere near liberal enough for me.  He said he’d close Guantamano (sic), he hasn’t done that.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: He said he’d help people out with foreclosures, he hasn’t done that.

RUSH:  I feel for you on that.

CALLER:  But Reagan, I mean, amnesty to people who are breaking the law and living in the country illegally. He said, “Forget about it. Stay here forever.” He cut and ran from Lebanon. How many hundreds of Marines were killed –

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: — and he just decided, “Well, you know, instead of the fighting the bad guys I’m gonna run away”?

RUSH:  Yeah.

CALLER:  Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?

RUSH:  “Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?”  I don’t think you… Given what you’ve said, and I’m not trying to avoid the question, I don’t think you’d ever understand it.

CALLER:  Well, he’s a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists.  Why is he a hero to conservatives?  I don’t think you understand it.

RUSH:  No, I do. Most assuredly I do.  I just don’t think that you would understand it.  Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes on Social Security?  What websites do you read?  Where did you pick that up?

CALLER:  Look up the Greenspan Commission.  It’s not too hard to find.  I mean, it’s a matter of history.

RUSH:  Where did you get it?  I mean, you’re asking me questions.  I’m just reversing one on you here.

CALLER:  I’m sorry.  It’s just general knowledge.  It’s something I’ve known for a long time. I can’t remember where I got it from.

RUSH: You can’t remember? You’ve never heard of a website called Media Matters which highlighted it yesterday?

CALLER: (static) Oh, no. I know Media Matters very well but that’s not where I got it.

RUSH: Oh, not where you got it. It’s an amazing coincidence.

CALLER: (static) I mean, I’m a liberal.  Of course I know Media Matters.

RUSH:  Amazing coincidence out there.

CALLER: (static blaring) They’re a fantastic website.  But why are you dodging the question?  I want to know why a tax-raising, amnesty-giving, cut-and-running, negotiating-with-terrorists guy is a hero to the conservative movement.

RUSH:  Well, because you understand Reagan in a way that is flawed. You –

CALLER: (static)

RUSH: Your call is actually kinda interesting because you represent the impossibility of “bridging the gap.”  Somebody like you just has to be defeated.  There’s no crossing the aisle and finding common ground with you.  You’re free to be who you are, don’t misunderstand.  I’m not trying to be insulting. I’m just saying, you are unreachable. You don’t want to be reached.  This picture of Reagan, you’ve just described somebody you should love, and you hate him! You just described somebody you should absolutely love, all these things. He’s an anti-conservative, as you say, but you don’t love him. You’re having trouble understanding why he’s viewed as heroic to a lot of people. 

I could talk to you about anti-communism. I could. You want to talk about amnesty? Yeah, that was Simpson-Mazzoli, and that was one-and-a-half, two million illegals; and he was told, “Okay, if we’re gonna do this, this is it, then. We’re gonna secure the borders and that’s it.”  It’s the same thing with every tax increase he signed. It was also accompanied by promises to cut spending, and it never happened.  Reagan’s not perfect.  Nobody is.  But I think the proof of Reagan is the fact that when your guys get in trouble, who do they seek to associate themselves with?  Remember, Obama and these people are all about getting votes. 

The fact that he’s trying to surround himself with Reagan, the fact that he’s trying to position himself with Reagan is the best indication anybody could have of what this country really thinks of Ronaldus Magnus.  I think if you want to focus in on hypocrisy, you’ve got far more of it on your side of the aisle to explain and dig through than we do.  Reagan was forced to raise payroll taxes by a crisis in Social Security in 1983. He endorsed that rescue plan that was written by Alan Greenspan. It was reluctant.  He was not a big supporter of that.  Remember, Reagan did not have a congressional majority with him.

Everything he got, the tax cuts, he had Democrats outnumbering him in the House and Senate everywhere.  There were certain realities that he faced.  But the biggest tax increase on Social Security was authored by none other than Bill Clinton.  But did you understand the notion? Ronald Reagan fought for America.  He loved America.  He feared where the left, based on history, wanted to take the country.  Ronald Reagan set the stage for the end of the Cold War.  Ronald Reagan defeated Soviet communism without firing a shot.  I don’t know… But none of that would matter.  So you, sir, a nice individual, I’m sure you’re a fine guy (probably not too much fun at a ball game, unlike Bill Clinton), but still, you illustrate that people like you just have to be defeated, not met halfway and gotten along with.  I mean politically.

Rush is entirely correct here.  You can’t have a rational or meaningful discussion with people like this liberal caller.  You can only defeat them and render them powerless politically.

You can’t have an honest conversation with a dishonest person. There is simply no point.  They won’t tell you what’s really on their heart and mind; they merely constantly employ rhetorical games that mean nothing and go nowhere.  In the case of Rush’s caller, you had a man who simply spoke lies about Ronald Reagan.  If he had actually believed any of his own crap, he would have LOVED Reagan, as Rush pointed out.

I remember a discussion I had with a liberal on an article I wrote about the tax cuts.  An individual who called himself “michael” wrote and said:

I am at work right now but i just read this article and it is the funniest thing i have ever read. no hate intended but it looks like it was written by someone who read someone elses work and is trying to claim their opinion as his or her own

Well, this individual dismisses my work as having been plagerized.  That certainly wasn’t true.  I wrote every word that I didn’t directly cite as a quote and legitimately sourced every citation as having been quoted.  But after a little dicussion this same liberal writes another comment that supposedly puts me in m place.  Among other huge problems with this comment was the fact that my former professor’s nose smelled a rat.  Basically, the tone of the two writers didn’t match one another.  I googled part of the diatribe, and sure enough, discovered that the selfsame liberal who falsely accused me of plagerizing had actually completely plagerized his rebuttal to me.

After exposing his dishonesty, I said:

You are not an honest person, Michael. And there is no point having a discussion with a liar. Because the truth and the facts don’t matter to a liar. And someone like you can and will say anything and claim lies as fact.

And I’m not going to waste my time with you.

And that’s where we’re at.  There’s no “bridging the gap” with liberals.  There’s no rational dialogue.  They have a warped and depraved worldview, which means they cannot even possibly understand the world as it really is (i.e., from the “God’s-eye view”), and then, to make it even worse, far too few of them are personally honest enough to have a meaningful discussion involving facts and truth because dishonest people will simply invent “facts” and surround themselves in lies.

Rush ultimately informs the audience that Reagan basically NEVER had Republican control of Congress throughout his entire presidency.  The House of Representatives, which controls spending, was under complete Democrat control for every single year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency (with first Tip O’Neil and then Jim Wright serving as Democrat Speakers of the House).  As for the Senate, it was also under Democrat control for part of Reagan’s presidency; and Reagan NEVER had a strong majority there.  So the caller was not depicting events honestly: it wasn’t like Reagan realized his policies were failing and raised taxes.  Rather, Reagan had to constantly negotiate and compromise with Democrats in control of the Congress – particularly the House – and was forced to make concessions to get other things he wanted.

Furthermore, this caller who plagued Rush was little different from the blogger who plagued me.  He passed off liberal talking points as his own thoughts.  It turns out that this caller was merely regurgitating crap that was flying out of the mouths of the vomitous left.  You can see a conservative response to these slime attacks on Reagan here.

So let me quote that article’s response to the liberal’s charge that Reagan gave illegal’s amnesty:

The Democrat leadership in Congress promised to enact strict enforcement measures as a trade for a one-time amnesty deal. In an effort to control the border, Reagan went along with the deal.  At the time (1986), the measures were marketed by Democrats as as being able to stop illegal immigration. Ted Kennedy himself sold the enforcement clauses of the law as strong enough to ensure that only a one-time amnesty would be needed. But, as is their standard practice, Democrats lied about sealing the border.

Which not only shows that Reagan most certainly did NOT say, “Forget about it. Stay here forever,” as the caller deceitfully claims, but in fact goes back to the now documented proof that liberals are liars who cannot be trusted and cannot be bargained with or reasoned with.

The caller describes Reagan as running from Lebanon with his tail between his legs.  Which is actually funny, given the fact that Democrats at the time demanded that Reagan immediately pull out of Lebanon after the Beirut bombing that killed 241 Marines.  Nobody on the left was demanding we attack Lebanon.

I have my own perspective on that.

Reagan’s pullout from Lebanon bothered me greatly at the time.  But I realize the Reagan’s wisdom now.  He was already in the process of fighting and defeating the Soviet Union – the largest military power on earth – and he saw the folly of getting America into another war against a different ideology and another limitless enemy at the same time.  If you were in the infantry in the 1980s, you knew that we were preparing for some potentially imminent conflagration; and we would be pouring in to Western Europe to fight a defensive war against a Soviet invasion.  Ronald Reagan wisely chose to stay the course in facing and defeating the Soviet Union, and allow the Islamic threat to remain for another day when the Russian threat was gone.  Just imagine how much the Russians would have loved it to be able to supply millions of death-happy Muslims and watch us bleed from the sidelines in an endless proxy war?  Which is to say that the caller not only misrepresents what in actual fact happened - making him a liar – but also argues that Reagan should have fought two civilizational wars simultaneously, making him a complete fool.

When Democrats routinely pursue such deceit, it becomes pointless to argue with them.  It boils down to the Mark Twain wisdom of, “Never argue with a fool.  People won’t be able to tell the difference.”  Try to reason with those independents who are capable of “bridging the gap,” as Rush Limbaugh put it.  Argue with people who might change their minds.  Argue with people who won’t play a neverending tune of rhetorical garbage.  Argue with people who won’t constantly rely on lies.

And just defeat liberals.  Because defeat is the only reality that they are capable of understanding.

Leftwing Violence And Media Propaganda/Coverup Continues Unabated

How long did it take for liberals and their media lackeys to blame Republicans and conservatives for Jared Loughner and the “climate of hate” that resulted in the Tucson, Arizona shootings?  Probably about two minutes, but New York Slimes columnist Paul Krugman was the first “mainstream” “journalist” to viciously attack the right two hours after the event (evidence not required).

The left immediately cited Sarah Palin having used a map “targeting” Democrats.  It didn’t matter that it was DEMOCRATS who invented these “targeting maps.”  Nor did it matter that the Democrat PARTY – not just some politician who wasn’t even in office anymore like Sarah Palin – had used these maps themselves (both the Democratic Leadership Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are were discovered to have used such maps).

The left immediately attacked Sarah Palin because one of the vulnerable districts that Sarah Palin “targeted” for defeat in the midterm elections was Gabrielle Gifford’s district.  It didn’t matter that the powerful liberal site DailyKos had similarly targeted Gabrille Giffords because she wasn’t leftwing enough for them.  And even more, it didn’t matter that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas took his hate to a whole new level beyond anything Sarah Palin approached by saying of Gabrielle Giffords, “she’s dead to me.”

Nor did it matter that if anything at all, shooter Jared Loughner exhibted FAR more characteristics of a leftwinger than he did of a rightwinger (and see also here).

You see, for any of the above to matter, the left would have to have some shred of virtue.  And they simply don’t have any virtue at all.  They are liars without honesty, shame or integrity.  Hypocrisy and deceit are pathological.  Take these things away from a liberal, and he or she would vanish.  Because it’s all they are.

Even as the left denounced the right for the “climate of hate,” they were frothing at the mouth with their own special climate of hate.

Now, for the record I don’t really mind the left spewing their hate.  I think it helps reveal who and what they are.  What I DO mind – and what got me into blogging – is the massive hypocrisy in which these people constantly denounce us for hate when they are so full of it themselves.  These are people who have practiced hatred and violence for decades, and when we respond to their jackboots in our faces, they denounce us as practicing hate.  As if the victim who fights the attacker is every bit as guilty as the attacker for any violence.

So it was rather revealing that the only person who was in any way, shape or form connected with the Tucson Arizona shooting who actually threatened to kill somebody was a LIBERAL threatening a TEA PARTY spokesman (and see also here).  The self-described LIBERAL took a picture of the tea party member and said, “You’re dead.”

President Obama gave one of his “just words” speeches filled with flowery but empty rhetoric in which he condemned the harsh polarized political climate that he himself was instrumental in creating.  And, of course, Obama himself hypocritically loaded up the Tucson memorial service with his own image and his own political sloganeering in marked contrast to his message.

But the left is vicious and vile and venomous.  So it took them no time at all to show their demonic nature.

Republicans tried to play by the new rules.  They called a break (and a truce) for a week and halted their calender in an important time that the opposition party would ordinarily want to use to full advantage prior to a State of the Union speech.  And they toned down their language, for example, changing the word “kill” in “job killing” to “crush” or “destroy.” It was a useless gesture, I know, but the Republicans were doing what they could to practice civility according to the long laundry list of words that political-correctness-embracing Democrats had decided was off limits.

But, of course, Democrats paid no attention to the rules they insisted that Republicans follow.  Controlling liberal hate is like controlling a rabid dog in full-frothing mode; it just doesn’t happen.  So it should be no surprise that Democrats would be unable to control themselves in their hateful dialogue even while Republicans tried to jump through the rhetorical hoops Democrats demanded.

Tennessee Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen invoked the most evil event in human history to attack Republicans on the House floor:

“They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels,” Cohen said. “You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing.” And Congressman Cohen didn’t stop there.

“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it–believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover,” Cohen said.

Now, keep in mind, Sarah Palin got demonized by the mainstream media for having maps that did the exact same thing that Democrat maps had been doing for years.  Did the media come unglued and denounce Cohen for his despicable hate?  Nope.  They put it in a “broader context,” which means that to the extent that they didn’t simply ignore it altogether, they explained it away.

Fellow Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee had her own version of attacking Republicans for a Holocaust to be if they dare to vote according to their principles:

“Frankly, I would just say to you, this is about saving lives. Jobs are very important; we created jobs,” Jackson Lee said. “But even the title of their legislation, H.R. 2, ‘job-killing’ — this is killing Americans if we take this away, if we repeal this bill.”

Okay.  So Republicans are “killing Americans.”  But other than that they’re decent people.  Really.

There’s your new “civility” for you.  It’s Democrats demonizing Republicans for what Democrats have actually done more than Republicans.  And heaping hate on top of rabid hate even as they hypocritically denounce Republicans for the climate of hate that Republicans are of course responsible for.

And the media will play that game all day.  Because, contrary to Steve Cohen’s remark, the new “Jospeh Goebbels” in this country are journalists.

So we’ve got stuff like this: a leftist radical who acted on his radical leftism tried to murder a politician who wasn’t far leftist enough.  He wrote, “How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?”

This radical leftist slashed the throat of a college dean out of the mistaken belief that he was the governor of Tennessee.  It happened last September.  And nobody reported it simply because, well, they couldn’t figure out a way to turn this radical leftist into a Republican.

But they sure were on top of the story that Sarah Palin had a map that you needed to know about, didn’t they???

And if Democrats had a stack of maps themselves, well, you just didn’t need to know that, the self-appointed media gate-keepers figured.

Nor did you need to know about that petty little leftist would-be assassin.

Nor do you really need to know anything that contradicts the mainstream – liberal, of course – media message.

A Tale Of Two Victims, One Liberal, One Conservative

In the terrible tragedy of Tucson, Arizona, we have a tale of two victims.

Given the vicious and hateful liberal denunciation of conservatives, it becomes fitting to see what the real lives of conservatives versus liberals actually looks like:

We first learned about the liberal victim, James Eric Fuller:

Ariz. shooting victim arrested, taken to hospital
By AMANDA LEE MYERS and BOB CHRISTIE, Associated Press Amanda Lee Myers And Bob Christie, Associated Press – Sun Jan 16, 5:48 pm ET

TUCSON, Ariz. – Grief-stricken after the Tucson supermarket massacre, shooting victim James Eric Fuller found comfort writing down the Declaration of Independence from memory while still recovering in the hospital.

The self-described liberal and military veteran became distraught Saturday, authorities said, when he began ranting at the end of a televised town hall meeting about the tragedy. He took a picture of a local tea party leader and yelled “you’re dead” before calling others in the church a bunch of “whores,” authorities said.

Deputies arrested him and called a doctor. They decided he should be taken to a hospital for a mental evaluation, said Pima County sheriff’s spokesman Jason Ogan said.

Then we found out about the conservative victim – described, in fact, as “very conservative” (and see also here from a different source) – Judge John Roll:

Police: Security Footage Shows AZ Judge Died Saving Another Man
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 10:20am by Jonathon M. Seidl

Last week he was called “fair” and “just.” Today, Judge John Roll, the federal judge killed in the Tucson shooting, is being called a hero.

Police say security footage from the Safeway store where the shooting occurred shows accused gunman Jared Loughner walking up to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and shooting here at close range — the video shows only a wisp of her hair, however. Loughner then turns and begins firing indiscriminately into the crowd.

“He wheels this direction and that direction firing,” Chris Nanos, a captain with the Pima County Sheriff’s Department who has viewed the video, told the Wall Street Journal.

The Journal explains what happens next in the video with 63-year-old Judge Rolls:

As the shooting starts, the video shows Judge Roll pushing another man, Rob Barber, onto the ground, Mr. Nanos said. “It looks to us as though he is pushing against Ron Barber to move him out of the way.” Both men fall to the ground; both are shot. The judge was shot in the back and died.

The New York Times quotes Richard Kastigar, another investigator in the case, in explaining the incident this way:

The judge guides Mr. Barber to the ground, shields him with his body, and then tries to push himself and Mr. Barber away from the gunman, who was no more than three to four feet away as he fired, Mr. Kastigar said.

“He pushes Mr. Barber with his right hand and guides him with his left hand. The judge was on top of him and is covering up Mr. Barber, literally lying on top of him, and his back was exposed,” Mr. Kastigar said.

“It’s pretty evident to me that Judge Roll was a hero … if Judge Roll had not pushed Mr. Barber his wounds might have been fatal,” Nanos told the Journal . “Judge Roll‘s actions are of a man trying to save another man’s life.”

I’m sorry to have to taint the memory of a great man like Judge John Roll – who should be celebrated as a magnificent example of a human being – by juxtaposing him with a liberal swine.  But it’s time to start shouting down the left which has been screaming at us like the lunatics they are for decades.

Two hours after the shooting, liberal Paul Krugman wrote a piece essentially claiming that conservatives like Judge John Roll are hateful and evil.  And he was guided entirely and exclusively by his hatred for his ideological opponents in that piece.

If anything, the Tucson shooting revealed that it is liberals who are hateful and evil.

Conservative Judge John Roll died saving a life while a liberal who survived screamed “you’re dead” to another conservative.  Conservative Judge John Roll was “a deeply religious man” – which for the record is typical of conservatives as opposed to liberals – contrasted with the atheistic nihilism of murderer Jared Loughner.

As long as Paul Krugman is allowed to express his propaganda and hate on pages of the so-called “newspaper of record,” I will be entirely justified in saying that liberals are vile.  Because they support him and the so-called “journalists” like him.

Please don’t bother to criticize me from the political left unless you can document that you have publicly called for the New York Times to fire Paul Krugman.

 

On the Malicious Connection Between Conservatives And Hate

The following article will consist in two parts: 1) A detailing of just a few of the profoundly hateful rhetoric that comes out of the left on a routine basis, which clearly refutes the idea that some sort of “climate of hate” is being generated by the right wing; and 2) my argument why “political rhetoric” – which is free speech that should be protected by anyone who values American society – should have nothing to do with acts of violence.

Allow me to state at the outset that, when we look at Jared Loughner, what we find is that he had a grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords dating back to 2007.  That grudge predates Sarah Palin; it predates the Tea Party movement; it predates the so-called “rightwing rhetoric” against Barack Obama.  In fact, Loughner’s hatred of Rep. Giffords actually occurred during the LEFTWING hatred targeting George W. Bush and Republicans.  And we find that while Loughner nowhere mentioned Sarah Palin, the tea party movement, ObamaCare, conservatives, or anything “right wing,” he DID repeatedly mention his belief that George Bush was responsible for engineering the 9/11 attacks.

And yet it took Paul Krugman and The New York Slimes 2 hours after the terrible tragedy in Tucson to publish a vile and frankly immoral piece of propaganda demonizing conservatives.  Which is to say that this Nobel Prize-winning propagandist of the left started manufacturing facts before the echoes of the gunfire had died down.  And this from a man who had himself burned effigies of Republicans at his party celebrating the Democrat victories in 2008; and who had called for Joe Lieberman to be hung by the neck in effigy.

Let’s take a moment and look at the hatred of the left, and realize just how amazingly laughable it is for the left to claim the moral high ground regarding any “climate of hate,” and recognize that they did nothing more than despicably try to seize political advantage from a terrible tragedy:

1) The hatred of conservatives by the left:

■ “I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” — Left-wing radio host Mike Malloy on the January 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show, talking about Rush Limbaugh going to the hospital after suffering chest pains.

■ MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in 2009 fantasized about the death of Rush Limbaugh: “Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp”

■ Author/humorist P.J. O’Rourke: “It’s the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy-”
Host Bill Maher: “You mean Rush Limbaugh and Sean-”
O’Rourke: “-from the moment the fat guy refused to share his drugs….”
Maher: “You mean the OxyContin that he was on?…Why couldn’t he have croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?” — HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, February 8, 2008.

■ MSNBC’s Amy Robach in 2006 mildly wondered if “Death of a President” movie depicting the imagined assassination of President Bush was “poor taste or, as some say, thought-provoking?”

■ On his radio show in 2009, Ed Schultz wished for Dick Cheney’s death: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country … Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?”

■ Also on his radio show, in 2010, Schultz shouted: “Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!”

■ Then-Air America host Montel Williams in 2009 urged Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to kill herself: “Slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to – or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

■ Writing on the Huffington Post in 2007, radio host Charles Karel Bouley mocked: “I hear about Tony Snow and I say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you? Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?”

■ “I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Host Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, March 2, 2007, discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed.

■ “Earlier today, a rental truck carried a half a million ballots from Palm Beach to the Florida Supreme Court there in Tallahassee. CNN had live helicopter coverage from the truck making its way up the Florida highway, and for a few brief moments, America held the hope that O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris.” — Bill Maher on ABC’s Politically Incorrect, November 30, 2000.

■ Host Tina Gulland: “I don’t think I have any Jesse Helms defenders here. Nina?”
NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “Not me. I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” — Exchange on the July 8, 1995 Inside Washington, after Helms said the government spends too much on AIDS.

■ “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease….He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” — USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

For more examples and additional information, see MRC’s recent report: “While Media Indict Conservative Speech, Left’s Lunacy Is Ignored”

See also Michelle Malkin’s documentation, “The Progressive Climate of Hate: an Illustrated Primer 2000-2010.”

I have further documented numerous concrete acts of violence by the left in two articles here and here which I wrote during the debates that occurred last year when Democrats falsely demonized the right.

Furthermore, you should do a review of history.  Go back to the 1960s and consider movements and organizations such as the Weathermen, Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers, the anti-war movement, the radical environmentalist movement, and the violence that has been all-too typical of the left.

I believe by now I’ve made my point.

Before moving on, allow me to demonstrate how top Democrats have deliberately manufactured blame and guilt at conservatives for crimes that liberals and Democrats in fact committed.

First, there is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. reflecting on how his Uncle Jack (JFK) was essentially killed by right wing conservative hatred as a device to “me to” the liberal movement to demonize conservatives as being responsible for the Tuscon, Arizona shooting by a deranged psychopath.  There was only one problem: JFK was murdered by a communist named Lee Harvey Oswald, who somehow is never mentioned a single time in Kennedy Jr.’s fabricated account.

The second episode was Nancy Pelosi, speaking out against the Tea Party movement, reflecting on the murder of Harvy Milk in her district of San Francisco:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

What’s wrong with Pelosi’s words and tears?  Well, in demagoguing conservatives for their climate of violence-generating hate, she nowhere reflects upon the fact that Harvey Milk and George Moscone were murdered by a Democrat who was angry because his fellow Democrats had not reappointed him to his government job.  And her equating these murders with right wing violence is not just absurd, but evil.

Both of these accounts are readily historically verifiable.  The Democrats in question literally fabricate history in order to blame the party and ideology that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with these murders.  What we see are people who are clearly close enough to the events in question to know that what they are saying is not true.  They are either liars without shame, or they have literally so committed themselves to false ideology that they have used every possible device of rationalization to believe obvious lies.  You can take your pick.

So you take an event like the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (along with the murder of conservative Republican-appointed federal judge John Roll, btw), and demonize conservatives for it, and it is merely one more documented case of obvious demonization that merely serves to demonstrates that if you want to see hate, just look at liberals.

And, yes, if deranged monster Jared Loughner was anything, he was a liberal.  One thing is certain; he certainly was not a conservative, and he certainly was not influenced by any “rightwing climate of hate.”

Clearly, I did not attempt to prove that conservatives have not said anything hateful.  First of all it would be impossible to prove a negative; and second whether conservatives have said hateful things about liberals really isn’t the point here.  The point is that when Democrats denounce the right for “hate,” they merely demonstrate that they are hypocrites without any shame whatsoever.

This baseless and hateful charge about rightwing hate being responsible for the Tucson shooting that was recently repeated by dozens of Democrat elected officials, hundreds of mainstream media journalists, and thousands upon thousands of liberal bloggers, literally becomes a tacit acknowledgment that it is in fact the left that practices hate.

Tomorrow: Part 2, on how free speech political rhetoric should be and is unrelated to acts of violence: “On The So-Called Link Between Political Rhetoric And Violence.”

Meet The Biggest Bigots In America: The Mainstream Media

Question: what is a “bigot”?

big·ot     noun \ˈbi-gət\
Definition of BIGOT
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So, bigots are people who are intolerantly devoted to their own views, and who treat members of certain groups with hatred and intolerance.

Meet the worst bigots in America: the mainstream media, the ideological home of liberal progressives.

Few signs at tea party rally expressed racially charged anti-Obama themes
By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 14, 2010; 6:00 AM

A new analysis of political signs displayed at a tea party rally in Washington last month reveals that the vast majority of activists expressed narrow concerns about the government’s economic and spending policies and steered clear of the racially charged anti-Obama messages that have helped define some media coverage of such events.

Emily Ekins, a graduate student at UCLA, conducted the survey at the 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington last month by scouring the crowd, row by row and hour by hour, and taking a picture of every sign she passed.

Ekins photographed about 250 signs, and more than half of those she saw reflected a “limited government ethos,” she found – touching on such topics as the role of government, liberty, taxes, spending, deficit and concern about socialism. Examples ranged from the simple message “$top the $pending” scrawled in black-marker block letters to more elaborate drawings of bar charts, stop signs and one poster with the slogan “Socialism is Legal Theft” and a stick-figure socialist pointing a gun at the head of a taxpayer.

There were uglier messages, too – including “Obama Bin Lyin’ – Impeach Now” and “Somewhere in Kenya a Village is Missing its Idiot.” But Ekins’s analysis showed that only about a quarter of all signs reflected direct anger with Obama. Only 5 percent of the total mentioned the president’s race or religion, and slightly more than 1 percent questioned his American citizenship.

Ekins’s conclusion is not that the racially charged messages are unimportant but that media coverage of tea party rallies over the past year have focused so heavily on the more controversial signs that it has contributed to the perception that such content dominates the tea party movement more than it actually does.

“Really this is an issue of salience,” Ekins said. “Just because a couple of percentage points of signs have those messages doesn’t mean the other people don’t share those views, but it doesn’t mean they do, either. But when 25 percent of the coverage is devoted to those signs, it suggests that this is the issue that 25 percent of people think is so important that they’re going to put it on a sign, when it’s actually only a couple of people.”

[...]

Adam Brandon, a spokesman for FreedomWorks, said his organization did not instruct protesters to limit their messages to fiscal slogans, but he did patrol the crowd and threw out a few protesters carrying signs depicting Obama as Adolf Hitler.

If you want to look at the face of one of the most dangerous and most damaging bigots in America today, you can do so from your very own home.  Just turn on the television and watch the news.  And there is a very good chance that you will be looking at the glassy-eyed, glib face of a bigot.

Journalists are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their opinions and prejudices.  As a matter of routine, they regard or treat the members of a group (conservatives and their sub-groups, such as Christians and Tea Party supporters) with hatred and intolerance.

They don’t accurately or honestly report the facts; they slant the news with their bigotry.

I wrote an article nearly a year-and-a-half ago that began thus:

I didn’t even know what “teabagging” was in the nasty sense until CNN’s Anderson Cooper (“It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging“), MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann (“the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals“) – and numerous others just like them – used the term as a rhetorical propaganda polemic to attack and ridicule hundreds of thousands of Tea Party demonstrators simply because something about tea parties sounded similar to something that warped liberals did to one another.

But now that I know what it is, lefties can go teabag themselves.  It’s pretty much who they are anyway.

CNN’s Susan Roesgen, who handpicked protesters at the Tea Parties and attempted to argue with their political views rather than simply report on the event like a legitimate journalist would have done, is a classic piece of agenda-driven propaganda masqeurading as news these days.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who put failed radio host Janeane Garofalo on his “Countdown” program so he could join with her in agreeing that everyone who attended a Tea Party was a racist who couldn’t stand a black man being president; and put on Michael Musto so he could agree with Musto’s rabid description of Miss California Carrie Prejean as a homophobic female transsexual for honestly answering a simple question about gay marriage.  This, of course, isn’t “news.”  It’s not even “propaganda.”  It’s simply naked hate.

In another shocking base of media bigotry revealed, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez – who fraudulently reported as fact “bigoted” statements that Rush Limbaugh never made – proceeded to demonstrate on air that he – and NOT Rush Limbaugh – was the real bigot.

CNN recently fired Sanchez for his “them Jews” talk, but they had been fine with his previous blatant display of anti-conservative bigotry that had resulted in slanderous statements that made a mockery of the journalistic integrity of his entire mainstream media network.

Being a “journalist” today has virtually become synonymous with being a “bigot.”

And the only difference between a garden variety bigot and a journalist is that the former don’t have a large forum, whereas the latter get to spread their hate and lies on mass media.

The final question is this: if you constantly voluntarily watch bigots and agree with their views, then what are you?