Mainstream Media Propaganda Machine Turns Other Way As Democrats Now Want To ‘Get A Little Bloody’

Somehow the mainstream media – which was ALL OVER the fact that many tea party protestors happened to be Caucasian – managed to completely overlook the fact that the liberals being bussed in to raise hell in Wisconsin were whiter than say, oh, a freshly laundered Ku Klux Klansman’s kleenest robe.

Now suddenly the race of the protestors is apparently irrelevant.  Mobs of white LIBERALS are fine.

Oh, well, NEVER EXPECT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA TO BE FAIR, OBJECTIVE OR HONEST.

We constantly heard of allegations that the tea party was putting up violent and hateful signs from the mainstream media.  It didn’t matter that there was very little of that.  Nor did it matter that the little there was the result of dishonest and despicable leftists.

Now, in Wisconsin, that hateful Nazi swastika Hitler crap abounds.  But it’s liberals hating a Republican, and so the mainstream media just doesn’t seem to find that very newsworthy:

And did you notice just how WHITE and CAUCASIAN those Wisconsin protestors happen to be with their Nazi Hitler swastika signs???

If you hold your breath waiting for the media to actually be fair and objective and give the left the kind of coverage they give the right every single damn day, you will spend the rest of your life unconscious.

There’s another angle to this: the “human sympathy” story angle.  You wait until the government gets shut down in a couple of months, and the media goes over the top making sure that the Republicans get all the blame for a dance that obviously takes two for the tango.  What you will get to see at that time will be an avalanche of stories as “journalists” and “reporters” scour the country looking for every single victim of the government shutdown they can possibly find.

But let me ask you: how many stories have you heard about poor single mothers losing their jobs because public schools canceled their classes because liberal government union teachers were out protesting?  How many stories have you heard about the terrible difficulty poor parents have had trying to scramble for day care for children who should have been in school?

Zero, you say?

Well, don’t you worry.  As soon as the media has some way to frame a story blaming Republicans, they’ll more than make up for that deficiency.

The mainstream media and of course the Democrat Party whose useful idiots the mainstream media are were all over themselves with outrage over the “hate” coming out of the right in the nanoseconds following the Tucson, Arizona shooting in which Gabrielle Giffords was one of the victims.  It didn’t matter that there was zero evidence that the shooter had anything to do with conservatives and if anything was a liberal (and see here and also here).  It didn’t matter if the actual documented hater involved in any way with the shooting was in in fact a documented liberal.  Heck, it didn’t even matter if one of the mainstream media outlets leading the charge to demonize Sarah Palin for the word “target” had used the damn word themselves in the same way Palin had.  The charge was enough.  And if they could make it with really shrill voices, so much the better.

So can you expect to see outrage over a Democrat Representative saying this?

This story is actually worse than first reported, when Capuano made the blood comments to union supporters he was pointing at a small group of Tea Partiers who were brave enough to counter-protest in Boston. Capuano is lucky nobody got hurt.

(Boston Herald) — U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano expressed regret Wednesday for his choice of words at a Tuesday rally to support Wisconsin workers, after national and local Republicans pounced on him for “over-the-top and inflammatory rhetoric.”

“Congressman Mike Capuano must have lost the memo from President Obama and Democratic leaders who were demanding more civility in our political discourse and a toning down of incendiary rhetoric after the massacre in Tucson on January 8,” the Massachusetts Republican Party wrote in a Wednesday statement. “Yesterday, at a rally on Beacon Hill, Capuano couldn’t resist the urge to stir up a crowd of union members with a call for blood in the pursuit and protection of their political agenda.”

During the Tuesday rally — a gathering of more than 1,000 union supporters protesting a proposal by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to diminish the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers in that state — Capuano, speaking in front of the State House, fired up the crowd by saying, “I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”

After Republicans took aim at his rhetoric, Capuano issued a statement expressing regret for his language, although at the time it drew wild applause and cheers from the throngs of union supporters.

Capuano also referred to a vastly outnumbered throng of Tea Party counter-protesters as “a couple of nuts in the background who want to take it all away from you,” waving his hand dismissively in their direction. Throughout the three-hour rally, rank-and-file union members traded heated barbs with the Tea Party backers. Some clashes nearly escalated into violence and resulted in police intervention. In one case, a pro-union rallier spit in the face of one of the counter-protesters, who set up camp near the rally.

Capuano’s comments quickly drew contrasts with the call for a more civil tone in national political rhetoric by President Barack Obama and politicians across the country after a mass shooting in Tucson that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Capuano was reportedly among those who agreed with Obama’s call, telling the Boston Globe in January, “Everybody knows the last couple of years there’s been an intentional increase in the degree of heat in political discourse . . . If nothing else good comes out of this, I’m hoping it causes people to reconsider how they deal with things.’’

How about the call to violence by the SEIU in its new “fight song”?

SEIU fight song: ‘Take the bastards down’

SEIU posted a fight song on their website called ‘Take ‘Em Down’ and it goes like this: “Ya got take the bastards down. Let them know. We got to smash them to the ground. Let them know. We got to take the bastards down. When the boss comes calling you got to stand your ground. When the boss comes calling let them know.”  With lyrics like that, it’s no wonder the violent SEIU took special notice of the song.

Here’s the screenshot of the SEIU posting this song telling the left to take conservatives down and smash them to the ground:

I’ve said this about the left before: what enrages me about them isn’t that they’ve been engaging in hate for the past fifty years, back when they started spitting on American soldiers and throwing dog shit at them.  It’s that they’ve done this crap for a full generation and then actually have the chutzpah to demonize the right for doing what they themselves have been doing for fifty years.  And then right after they demonize us, they actually go right back to being worse than the very thing they just got through demonizing us for doing.  And the thing that infuriates me even more than that is a media machine that – between self-backpatting for what virtues of journalistic objecivity they are – actually deliberately seek out stories of “rightwing hate” and actually refuse to report episodes of leftwing hate.

Three years into the utterly failed Obama presidency – a presidency, by the way, in which Obama’s core promise was to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars – and five years after Democrats took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, Democrats can only blame, blame and blame.

This was a nice summary of history:

Let’s look at the deficit history since Clinton was elected with his party in control of both houses of Congress:
1992 290.4 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
1993 255.1 Billion Dollar Deficit
1994 203.2 Billion Dollar Deficit
(GOP takes control of both houses, watch the deficit decrease)
1995 164 Billion Dollar Deficit
1996 107.5 Billion Dollar Deficit
1997 22 Billion Dollar Deficit
1998 69.2 Billion Dollar Surplus
1999 125.6 Billion Dollar Surplus
2000 236.4 Billion Dollar Surplus
(Bush elected with both houses still in GOP control)
2001 127.3 Billion Dollar Surplus
2002 157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit
(Dems take Senate, post 9-11 bills start piling up)
2003 374 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
2004 413 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
(GOP back in control of both houses; deficits going down again)
2005 319 Billion Dollar Deficit
2006 248 Billion Dollar Deficit
(Dems take both houses and retain them through FY 2010)
2007 162 Billion Dollar Deficit
2008 455 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
(Obama’s first year; both houses have larger Democrat majorities)
2009 1400 Billion Dollar Deficit <<== WTF? Record x 3!!!!!!!
2010 1350 Billion Dollar Deficit

… why do Republicans get blamed for such deficits, when the trend clearly illustrates the reverse is true?
Republicans are always lowering deficits, except when there is a war on — and even then, they keep budgets at lower % of GDP than their Democrat predecessors when they had wars on their watch.

The Republicans last budget that they controlled in FY-2007 had a deficit of $162 billion.  The VERY NEXT YEAR, the Democrats very nearly tripled that figure with their FY-2008 budget of $459 billion.  And by last year the Democrats were spending so shockingly and so recklessly that they didn’t even bother to pass a budget.

There are very few reasons to blame Republicans for the mess that we are now in, and all kinds of reasons to blame Democrats.  But the media will never be fair or honest.

The same media that rushed to give Obama credit for the “magnificent” popular uprising in Egypt are now mysteriously silent as hundreds and more likely thousands of people die in the rampages of Libya as we speak.  And suddenly there’s no mention of the fact that the same wave that started in Tunisia, then overtook Egypt, has now taken root in Yemen and Libya.  Suddenly, as our oil prices begin to skyrocket, it isn’t as “magnificent” anymore.  Even though skyrocketing energy prices were clearly in Obama’s plan for America.

But don’t you forget that Obama and his Organizing for America are bringing the same hysteria we see on our TV screens about the Middle East to states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio.

And don’t you forget that even as Arabs get bloody in the streets of Tripoli, it is DEMOCRATS who have called for Americans to get bloody in our streets.

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.

On The So-Called Link Between ‘Rightwing’ Political Rhetoric And Violence

See my previous article, “On the Malicious Connection Between Conservatives And Hate.”

Having documented that the left’s demonization of conservative “rhetoric” was nothing more than a hypocritical and immoral attempt to politically exploit a tragedy, I would like to go a little further and examine whether the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech should be denounced – as the Democrats have clearly tried to do in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting.

Should angry political rhetoric be suppressed?  Our founding fathers clearly didn’t think so.  And, truth be told, they freely let a fair amount of “rhetoric” fly themselves, during their day.  Furthermore, they codified that belief in the Bill of Rights.

But that isn’t the question I intend to examine.  Rather, I want to go further and ask, “Does angry political speech – call it ‘rhetoric’ if you want – lead to violence in a democracy?”

Let me repeat what I wrote when I first learned of this tragedy on Saturday, January 8:

Whoever did this terrible thing, and for whatever reason he did it, we have to be able to disagree in America without resorting to violence.  Or our entire system of government will collapse.  There can be no democratic republic in a police state.

Pray for Gabrielle Giffords.  Pray for her staff, some of whom were terribly wounded or even killed.  Pray for the safety of every single politician in America.  And especially pray for the safety of those politicians with whom you most disagree.

And later in that same article:

This event is something that should transcend the political arguments and the debate over which party should run America that constantly goes on.  Because ANY act of violence which accompanies a political statement of any kind undermines our freedom and liberty.

Because, like I said above, you cannot have a democratic republic in a police state.  And the more politically violent any group or individuals become, the more police powers become necessary to impose order.

All that to point out that I, as someone who can easily be identified by the pejorative “right winger,” would in fact NEVER call for acts of violence.  And I do not oppose political violence in spite of the fact that I am a conservative, but rather BECAUSE I am a conservative.

The fundamental tenant of political conservatism is the belief in limited government.  Conservatives are not “anti-government” any more than are leftists.  The far-leftist communists overthrew the current government in Russia in 1917; American liberals were opposed to the government of the Bush administration just a short time ago.  Conservatives don’t want NO government, but rather they want a federal government which is limited in size, sphere and power.  The debate isn’t between “pro-government” versus “anti-government,” but rather small government versus expansive government.  And my point is that as a conservative I don’t want a Big Brother state.  I don’t want the police on every corner.  I don’t want myriad laws restricting my freedoms.  I don’t want government imposing its will on me in order to “restore order” or impose “social justice.”  And frankly, if any political ideology in this country wants those things, it is the left.

I would further point out that the reason we do not need to resort to violence in our American democratic system is because we have the ability to use persuasion in place of and instead of violence.  But if you take away the ability to use persuasion to change society, all that is left is violence.

For the record, it is not conservatives, but liberals such as former SEIU president Andy Stern (among many others) – who have repeatedly said things like, “If we can’t use the power of persuasion, we will use the persuasion of power” – who have an unfortunate record of conflating persuasion with the raw exercise of “power.”

But let me go even further than that.  Let me take the most visceral political issue of all – abortion – and examine that issue in light of the possibility of rightwing violence.

Let me state my position on abortion clearly: it is nothing short of murder.  It is the unjustified killing of an innocent human being.

When President Obama gave his speech at the memorial service in Tucson, which shooting victim did he single out for the greatest attention?  It wasn’t Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; it was the youngest victim, nine year-old Christina Taylor.  What did Obama say?  “I want America to be as good as she imagined it.”

For someone who is pro-life, it is no surprise that the president would have focused on the youngest victim.  Because 9 year-old Christina had so much unrealized potential, so many dreams that would never be fulfilled, so much life that was taken away from her.  And it is precisely that deprivation of potential that makes her death so much more tragic and heart-wrenching than the 79 year-old victim – whose murder was obviously also a tragedy.

Allow me to consider the fifty-three MILLION innocent human beings who likewise should have had their entire lives ahead of them but instead had their lives violently and ruthlessly snuffed out.  Entire lifetimes of limitless human potential were ripped and dissolved away with surgical scissors and saline solutions.

Let me say even more: Adolf Hitler treated six million Jews as being “less than human” and ruthlessly exterminated them.  One of the greatest monsters in human history, and he is only one-NINTH as murderous as the Democrat Party in the United States of America.  There’s a term the Nazis used – Lebensunwertes Leben (“a life unworthy to be lived”) – that with all due respect is every bit as much an ideology of the Democrat Party as it was of the Nazi Party.

I think of Democrats who call themselves “Christians” celebrating Mary the Mother of Jesus’ “right to choose” to kill “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) in her womb, and I want to puke.  Your theology would murder Jesus in His mother’s womb; your “god” is abortion.

And I believe that one day Democrats will stand before a just and holy God, Who will send them to burn in hell for voting in election after election for untold millions of the most innocent of all human beings to be slaughtered for the sake of convenience.

I agree.  These are pretty strong words.  And yeah, they’re harsh.  Truth isn’t always warm and fuzzy.

And yet I’ve never killed anyone, or ever even once advocated the killing of anyone, who was pro-abortion.

Do you want to know why?

I earlier mentioned Adolf Hitler.  Let me return to him now for a thought experiment that will help me make my point.

Suppose that I could go back in time and assassinate Adolf Hitler.  Would I do it?

Well, first let me ask, would you do it?  Take a moment and think about it before reading any further.

My answer is yes, I believe I would do so.  I believe that I would kill Adolf Hitler.  Not for sake of revenge; but for the sake of all living things.  I would kill Adolf Hitler to save millions of human lives and prevent human misery and suffering beyond imagination.

Ah, you say.  So why not apply that reasoning to abortion doctors, and prevent the murders of untold babies?  Wouldn’t that be consistent?

And I would answer no, it isn’t.  Because in the case of Adolf Hitler, we have the benefit of 100%, 20/2o hindsight.  We have the record of Hitler’s entire life.  We know what he did, and we know what he intended to continue to do.

Now consider abortion doctor George Tiller, aka “Tiller the baby killer.”  He was murdered – in a church, no less – by someone who said that “preborn children’s lives were in imminent danger.”  And yet it is important to recognize that the pro-life movement immediately denounced the murder.

Let me tell you what I don’t know about George Tiller’s life that I did know about Adolf Hitler’s life.

Just like every single one of those fifty-three million innocent human beings who were murdered in abortion mills, I don’t know what George Tiller’s future would have been.

Would George Tiller have changed his beliefs on abortion if he hadn’t been murdered?  It certainly isn’t impossible that he would have.  Take the case of former head abortion nurse and former active member of N.O.W. Joan Appleton.

What would have happened if had I killed Joan Appleton while she was still performing abortions?

Think of the potential for good that she has since done with her life that would have been snuffed out.

And, neither I or the murderer of George Tiller or anyone else knows what would have happened in George Tiller’s life had he not been murdered.  Imagine the testimony that the world could have heard had the most notorious abortion doctor in the country come out condemning abortion.

In point of fact, the man who murdered George Tiller in his moral ignorance committed the very same crime that abortionists commit which makes abortion so evil; he failed to consider the very essence of what he professed to stand for.

In effect, George Tiller’s murderer committed a retroactive abortion.  He put aside Tiller’s humanity, personhood and Imago Dei; he dismissed Tiller’s “right to life”; he ignored Tiller’s “potential.”  And he killed him.

Paradoxially, all the murderer of George Tiller did – condemned as he was by the pro-abortion movement – was use the exact same mindset that the abortion movement employs every single day.

I point out in a previous article:

And there really is no doubt, once we truly consider the issues. Ever hear the argument that fetuses aren’t human beings, so it’s okay to kill them? Think again. Both science and logic assure us that – from the moment of conception – that thing in the womb of a human mother is fully a human being. Take a moment and consider the taxonomic system by which every living thing is rigorously categorized and classified. By that system a human embryo is of the kingdom Anamalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primate, of the family Pongidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species Sapiens – same as any other human being. Put even more simply, that embryo is a human by virtue of its parents, and a being by the fact that it is a living thing: it is a human being.

I’ve heard the Nazi argument that Jews weren’t human beings.  I’ve heard the argument that unborn babies aren’t human beings.  Wrong, and wrong.

I’ve heard the declaration that conservatives such as Dick Cheney and Michelle Bauchmann don’t deserve to live.  I’ve heard the declaration that babies growing up in their mothers’ wombs don’t deserve to live.  Wrong, and wrong.

So, yes, I will be a voice crying out in the wilderness about the vicious evil of abortion.  I will cry out in despair about the tragedy of millions upon millions of little Christina Taylors who were eradicated as if they were diseases before they got any chance to live out the potential that they should have had.  But I won’t kill.  Because I believe in human life.

Governments have what St. Paul described as the power of the sword to carry out justice (see Romans 13:1-4).  But I, acting on my own authority, don’t have the right of either vengeance or vigilantism.  Because vengeance is not mine; and because justice for criminals is not mine to carry out.  It is for God and for the governments which He has ordained on this earth to carry out those tasks.

Let me now also say that there is no connection in a healthy mind, in a healthy society, between rhetoric and violence.  None whatsoever.

And what of an unhealthy mind?

I made the point in a previous article that I once had a mentally ill woman literally come unglued on me as I held a sign that merely said, “YARD SALE.”  And I concluded then what I point out here: that if we’re going to ban or condemn “angry political rhetoric” for its possible effects upon sick minds, we’re going to have to condemn far more than just political speech.  Because literally anything can set off a sick mind.  Even a yard sale becomes dangerous.

If we banish everything that could set off a diseased mind, we necessarily must become the Big Brother totalitarian state which I earlier described fearing.  Because what couldn’t set off such a mind, which would then mean what sphere of life would the government not need to control?

I believe that I have explained why a consistent conservative would never employ violence to advance a political cause.  I also believe I have done so by employing a worldview and an argument that Democrats not only don’t acknowledge, but frankly don’t even understand.

Which is why it is the political left – and not the political right – which has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of global political violence.  Whether it be Marxist or Maoist communist socialist violence or Nazi fascist socialist violence, whether it be union violence, or whether it be radical group violence (in the 1960s the FBI nearly exclusively identified leftwing groups as being violent even throughout Democrat administrations).  The political hatred and violence that we have seen has almost invariably been leftwing.

[For those who would like to see more regarding the relationship between Nazism and the political left, see my article on the connection between leftist thought and fascism; please see my comment on the connection between “fascism” and American liberalism, and see my articles on the connection between postmodernism and fascism here and see also here, especially before you post a comment trying to argue with me].

So it is long past time for liberals to stop denouncing conservatives and finally turn their examination upon themselves.