Mainstream Media ‘News’ Is Another Word For ‘Leftwing Propaganda’: Look At The Difference In Coverage

Let’s start with a very recent story of an NAACP president and a quote alluding to violence:

NAACP President Attacks Huntsville School System, Threatens Legal Action
Nick Banaszak
WHNT News 19 Reporter
4:00 p.m. CST, February 14, 2011

HUNTSVILLE, AL — Already dealing with an ongoing financial crisis that’s forcing layoffs and possible school closures, Huntsville City Schools now faces the threat of a lawsuit from the NAACP.

Local NAACP chapter president Alice Sams ripped the school system in a press conference Monday morning, while also presenting a list of demands the organization wants fulfilled immediately.

Sams and other leaders from Huntsville’s black community are accusing Huntsville City Schools of creating a divided system tilted against black students. The NAACP said the school district has failed to abide by a 1970 federal court order that officially eliminated segregation in schools for Alabama and other southern states.

“We have compiled a list of concerns, which in short is entitled ‘What We Want,” said Sams. “If satisfactory steps are not taken to satisfy our concerns, we may petition the state department of education to take over Huntsville City Schools and request Department of Justice and federal court intervention.”

NAACP officials say the alleged inequalities will only be made greater if several schools targeted for closure in predominantly black North Huntsville end up shutting their doors. The organization cited a forty point achievement gap between black and white students on standardized state tests, calling the results unfair and unacceptable. Sams said the blame did not fall on students or their parents, but rather on schools she claims are inferior compared to those in predominantly white South Huntsville. School closures are a likelihood as the district aims to overcome a $20 million budget deficit.

“It is our opinion that we have a divided system,” said Sams. “One for black students in the north end of town, separate, unequal and academically unsucessful; and one for the white students on the south end of town…All efforts to terminate the 1970 court order will be opposed by us until concerns to satisfy the racial and academic inequalities as stated are resolved.”

Sams ended her speech with a bold statement.

“Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitable,” said Sams, who quoted former president John F. Kennedy. When asked to clarify her remarks hose who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitableand how it applied to the context of the school system, she referred back to the original quote.

“You know what the quote means,” said Sams. “I quoted the president (Kennedy). He was a peaceful president, so I did a quote. You can interpret it anyway you want to, I just quoted.”

School board attorney J.R. Brooks declined our request for an on-camera interview and did not respond to the NAACP’s claims. He only said the school district had always been in compliance with federal court orders issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, and that the school board had no control or authority over people who had voluntarily moved in and out of North Huntsville since 1970.

Nothing in the mainstream news coverage about this as a racist remark or an instigation to violence.  No depiction of, “Violent revolution is inevitable.  And it will all be whitey’s fault when it comes.”

Now the media could have heard the words “violent revolution is inevitable” from the NAACP and immediately associated them with the views of a different black organization:

Here’s the new political correctness:

SHABAZZ:  I hate white people.  All of them!  Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him!  You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.

That certainly isn’t all that the guy Obama wanted to protect said:

Samir: We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

Now, it would have been very easy for the mainstream media to take the statement, “Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” and point out that in this case the inevitable “violent revolution” means killing crackers, killing white babies, and dealing harshly with white, dirty cracker whores.  And the revolution will be over when “whitey dead.”  You’ve got a call or at least a prediction of violent revolution coming from a specifically black and race-based organization, and you’ve got a very detailed description of what such black and race-based violent revolution would look like.

But they didn’t.  After all, John Kennedy said those words, and he was a Democrat, so it obviously can’t be bad.  And the black president of the NAACP is, of course, a sacred cow in the mainstream media, and her motives are beyond questioning.  Ever.

Now let’s look at how the mainstream media deals with conservatives who would dare to quote great minds of the past who held great warnings for the future:

Sharron Angle Joins Calls for Armed Revolution in America
Several prominent figures have hinted that they’d like to see armed Americans storming the Capitol.

Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee for Harry Reid’s Nevada Senate seat, has called for armed revolt against the government. Glenn Beck’s new novel, The Overton Window, encourages concerned citizens to pick up a weapon, too. And they’re not the only public figures calling for violent insurrection. 

In January right-wing radio host Lars Larson asked Tea Party favorite Angle where she stood on Second Amendment issues. She replied:

“You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, My goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

We presume she means “take Harry Reid out” by means of the ballot box. Or even more charitably, perhaps for dinner to discuss the bizarre and extreme direction American politics has taken since Barack Obama’s election in 2008. Because Angle is not the only prominent figure, or even the only politician who has recently called for armed revolution.

Rick Barber, a candidate in the Republican primary for Alabama’s Second Congressional District, released an ad which ends with an actor dressed as George Washington declaring “Gather your armies.” Presumably to storm the same Congress that Barber is hoping to join.

The Overton Window, Beck’s new novel, is also out today. According to a Washington Post review, it is a parable on worthy insurrection in which earnest, plucky American patriots arm to fight an evil plot by elites bent on a government takeover. Beck calls it ‘faction’—which is a melding of ‘fact,’ and ‘fiction,’ apparently. “If the book is found tucked into the ammo boxes of self-proclaimed patriots,” writes the reviewer Steven Levingston, “…Beck will have achieved his goal.” 

“The Overton Window,” Levingston concludes, “risks falling into the tradition of other anti-government novels such as The Turner Diaries, by William L. Pierce, which became a handbook of extremists and inspired Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.”

Meanwhile, in Oklahoma City in April 2010, Tea Party leaders and conservative members of the state legislature decided to try to create an armed state militia “to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty,” according to the Associated Press. The group hopes to get legislation to recognize the new force by next year. 

At around the same time as that plan was announced, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota told WWTC 1280 AM that she too wanted people “armed and dangerous,” on the issue of Obama’s energy bill, “because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson,” she said, her words becoming eerily familiar, “told us, ‘Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.”

Violent revolt is a regular theme of Rush Limbaugh’s too. And Sarah Palin made what some considered to be her own coded call to arms when she aired a new catchphrase—”Don’t retreat, reload”—for her followers.  She later said, during a speech in Nevada, that she was telling people, “Their arms are their votes. It’s not inciting violence. It’s telling people, Don’t ever let anybody tell you to sit down and shut up, Americans.”

Will the deniable words and twisted justifications for violence reach critical mass and push one unstable person over the edge? Hopefully we’ll never have to find out. (Or at least find out again.)

That’s Newsweek making all those sweeping connections, hardly insignificant stuff.  Did they look at all the hatred and calls for violence coming from the left and see a pattern?  Not with the king size blinders over their left side, they sure didn’t.  They take a couple of quotes from rightwing figures, run them through the filter of leftwing analysis such as the Washington Post who of course see “rightwing hatred and intolerance,” and then say, “See how evil they are?”  So Newsweek can connect Glenn Beck directly to Timothy McVeigh because another leftist publication made that connection for them, and Newseek is merely “reporting the facts.”

Take a look at this long, long, LONG, LOOOOOONG expose of urgings of hate and violence coming from the left and from leftwing media.  And of course that’s just one of many such compilations.  Read through that and then tell me that you can’t identify any trend to connect to the left wing.

The media could obviously, of course, do unto the left exactly what they manage to do unto the right on a daily, almost second-by-second basis.  But they won’t.  Because they are leftwing propagandists, and honesty, facts and truth are the last things on their minds.  I am quite willing to entertain the notion that NAACP president Alice Sams did not intend to make a call to violence.  But if you’re going to argue that Sharon Angle did, at least be fair for once in your life.  If quoting something because John F. Kennedy – the president who got America deeper into the Cold War, deeper into Vietnam and very deeply indeed into the Bay of Pigs mess – wasn’t violent, then why must quoting something that President Thomas Jefferson said be taken as violent?  If we’re going to be fair for just two seconds?  Shouldn’t the benefit of the doubt swing both ways once in a while?

But it never does.

So the media as a matter of routine blithely ignores all the giant logs of hate and anger and outright calls of violence there are coming from their own beloved left, but man do they spot every splinter coming from the despised right.

Now, you could point out that the NAACP president quoted John F. Kennedy whereas Sharon Angle quoted a hated founding father who helped lay the foundation for the even more hated Constitution.  Which of course the left only hates less than the Holy Bible.

But that only gets us back to the rabid bias and the contempt for truth that the media manages to exhibit every minute of every day.

For the record, I am not a journalist and I do not profess to be one.  I do not claim that I am “objective” and “nonpartisan.”  So please don’t call me a hypocrite for doing the same thing that I say that mainstream media is doing.  If you do so, I will immediately quote what I wrote here and correctly call you an idiot.  Because unless and until the mainstream media says, “We’re a bunch of liberal ideologues and we all only see things from a leftwing perspective and denounce the right as a matter of reflex,” I’m NOT doing what the mainstream media does.  Because unlike the mainstream media, I tell you exactly what perspective I’m coming from.  The banner directly under my “Start Thinking Right” site name reads, “Michael Eden’s discussion of the two forbidden subjects – politics and religion – from a conservative perspective.”  Unlike the deceitful mainstream media which reveals naked bias every single day, I never claim to be a neutral observer and objective reporter of the facts.  Rather, I proudly report the facts from a stated Judeo-Christian and conservative world view.  I never smuggle in my ideological bias and then report “opinion” as news like the mainstream media does in virtually every story they cover.

For the further record, I don’t denounce the mainstream media for their leftwing point of view; I denounce them for their blatantly false self-depiction of neutrality and objectivity when it is clearly not true.

American University Professors Continue To Show Us That They Love Fascism

First, the story from yesterday:

100 UC Irvine faculty members ask district attorney to drop charges against Muslim students
February 9, 2011 | 11:20 am

A group of 100 faculty members at UC Irvine signed a letter asking the Orange County district attorney to drop criminal charges against 11 Muslim students who disrupted a speech by the Israeli ambassador to the United States.

The group, including five deans, said the Muslim Student Union was wrong to disrupt the speech last year by Ambassador Michael Oren but that the students and the group had already been disciplined by the university.

Orange County prosecutors announced last week they were charging the students with two misdemeanor counts, including conspiracy to disrupt the speech. If convicted, each faces up to six months in jail.

The decision to charge the students, the faculty letter says, “sets a dangerous precedent for the use of the criminal law against nonviolent protests on campus.”

It goes on to argue the charges are harmful and divisive to the school and risk “undoing the healing process” after widespread debate erupted following the protest and the decision to temporarily suspend the group.

“I think there was a great deal of dismay that the DA was reviving what we thought had been a closed chapter in the university’s history,” said UC Irvine history professor Jon Wiener.

The district attorney has argued that the students organized to squelch the speaker in clear violation of the law. The students are set to be arraigned March 11 in Santa Ana.

Here’s the Youtube video of these students disrupting the Israeli ambassador’s speech – and, yes, free speech rights.

Now, any UC Irvine professor worth his tenure knows that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs and should most certainly not enjoy the free speech rights that liberals cherish.

Let’s not talk about the fact that radical Muslims are very much on the list of “good groups” with the left; and let’s not talk about the fact that no leftist worth his or her KoolAid likes Israel.

Let’s make this even easier: I challenge you to perform an experiment.   Enroll in a course taught by any of the following professors (i.e., the 100 who signed this morally idiotic letter):

Frank D. Bean, Chancellor’s Professor of Sociology
Kitty Calavita, Chancellor’s Professor of Criminology, Law and Society
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, School of Law
Joseph F. C. DiMento, Professor of Law and Policy, Planning & Design
Valerie Jenness, Dean, School of Social Ecology
Catherine Liu, Director, Humanities Center
Duncan Luce, Distinguished Research Professor of Cognitive Science
Penelope Maddy, Distinguished Professor of Logic & Philosophy of Science
George Marcus, Chancellor’s Professor of Anthropology
James M. McGaugh, Research Professor, Neurobiology and Behavior
Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Chancellor’s Professor of Law
Jack Miles, Distinguished Professor of English and Religious Studies
Mark Petracca, Chair, Dept. of Political Science
Kenneth Pomeranz, Chancellor’s Professor of History
Vicki Ruiz, Dean, School of Humanities
Sharon Salinger, Dean of Undergraduate Education
Barry Siegel, Director, Literary Journalism Program
Brook Thomas, Chancellor’s Professor of English
Jeffrey Wasserstrom, Chair, Dept. of History
Henry Weinstein, Senior Lecturer in Law and Literary Journalism
Jon Wiener, Professor of History
Dan L. Burk, Chancellor’s Professor of Law
Catherine Fisk, Chancellor’s Professor of Law
David A. Snow, Chancellor’s Professor of Sociology
F. Allan Hubbell, Executive Vice Dean, School of Medicine
Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Distinguished Professor of English  & Comparative Literature
Etienne Balibar, Distinguished Professor of Humanities
Greg Duncan, Distinguished Professor of Education
Grace C. Tonner, Associate Dean of Lawyering Skills
Ulrike Strasser, Associate Professor, History and Director, European Studies
Irene Tucker, Associate Professor of English
James Given, Professor of History
Dickson D. Bruce, Jr., Professor of History, Emeritus
Hugh Roberts, Assoc. Prof. Dept. of English
Robert Newsom, Professor Emeritus, Department of English
Mark Poster, Emeritus Professor, Film and Media Studies and History
Sharon Block, Associate Professor of History
Ann Van Sant, English
Jennifer Terry, Chair and Associate Professor of Women’s Studies
Laura J. Mitchell, Associate Professor of History
Emily Rosenberg, Professor of History
R. Radhakrishnan, Chancellor’s Professor of English and Comparative Literature
Eyal Amiran, Associate Professor, Comparative Literature and Film and Media Studies
Jerome Christensen, Professor of English
Susan Jarratt, Comparative Literature
Rebeca Helfer, English Department
Annette Schlichter, Associate Professor, Comparative Literature
Timothy Tackett, Professor of History
Touraj Daryaee, History Department
Carolyn P. Boyd, Professor Emerita, Department of History
Amy Wilentz, Professor of English and Literary Journalism
Victoria Silver, Associate Professor of English
Alice Fahs, Associate Professor of History
Anne Walthall, Professor of History
Laura Kang, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies
Alexander Gelley, Professor, Dept. of Comparative Literature
Elizabeth Allen, Associate Professor of English
Rubén G. Rumbaut, Professor of Sociology
David A.  Smith, Professor of Sociology and Planning, Policy and Design
Sarah Farmer, Associate Professor of History
Raul Fernandez, Social Sciences/Chicano Latino Studies
Keith Nelson, Professor Emeritus of History, Director, Program in Religious Studies
Estela Zarate, Assistant Professor, Department of Education
Leo Chavez, Anthropology
Deborah R. Vargas, Assistant Professor, Chicano/Latino Studies
Thurston Domina, Assistant Professor of Education and Sociology
DeSipio, Chair, Department of Chicano/Latino Studies
Jutta Heckhausen, Professor, Psychology and Social Behavior
Heidi Tinsman, Associate Professor of History
Ellen Burt, Professor of French and Comparative Literature
Belinda Robnett-Olsen, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology
Robert Folkenflik, Edward A. Dickson Emeritus Professor of English
Ron Carlson, Professor of English
Edwin Amenta, Professor of Sociology and History
Francesca Polletta, Professor of Sociology
Susan K. Brown, Associate Professor of Sociology
Adriana Johnson, Comparative Literature
Rachel Sarah O’Toole, Assistant Professor, History Department
Nancy McLaughlin, Assistant Professor, History Department
Steven C. Topik, Professor of History
Gilbert G. Gonzalez, Professor, Chicano-Latino Studies
Judy Stepan-Norris, Sociology
Julia Reinhard Lupton, Professor of English and Comparative Literature
Spencer Olin, Professor Emeritus of History
Glen Mimura, Associate Dean of Graduate Study, School of Humanities
Ana Elizabeth Rosas, Assistant Professor, Chicana/o-Latina/o Studies and History
Robert Moeller, Department of History
Elizabeth M. Guthrie, French, retired
Cecile Whiting, Chair, Department of Art History
Cynthia Feliciano, Associate Professor, Sociology and Chicano/Latino Studies
David S. Meyer, Professor, Sociology
Charlie Chubb, Professor, Cognitive Sciences
Alejandro Morales, Professor, Department of Chicano/Latino Studies
Ian Munro, Associate Professor of Drama
Luke Hegel-Cantarella, Head of Scenic Design – Claire Trevor School of the Arts
David Igler, Associate Professor of History
Stephen Barker, Associate Dean, Claire Trevor School of the Arts
Cliff Faulkner, Senior Lecturer, Drama Department
Vincent Olivieri, Designer/Composer/Assistant Professor, Drama Department
Carol Burke, Professor, English
David Carroll, Professor Emeritus of French
Robert Cohen, Claire Trevor Professor of Drama
Frank B. Wilderson, III, Associate Professor African American Studies & Drama

And the moment any of these professors begins lecturing, start shouting him or her down.  Scream as loud as you can so that the professor can’t make a single point. 

And see how long these complete, unadulterated hypocrites will tolerate your presence in their class.

I’d go on and say, “Do this every single day, just as the radical Muslims would scream down an Israeli every single time he spoke.”  But you wouldn’t get two chances with any of these professors: they’d have you out on your ear after your first minute, never to return on penalty of arrest.

I wrote the following the last time I wrote about a leftwing “intellectual” attacking Jews:

Thomas Sowell described the destruction their kind has done:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

American liberals enthusiastically supported Hitler’s socialist fascism during his rise to power, just as they had supported totalitarian communism in the years before.

Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left.  They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing.  Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics.  Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.

And the foolishness of academia continues full throttle and full speed to the next fascist dictator.

Do you want to know which guy who engaged in “nonviolent protest on campus” should have his rights preserved?  How about that Israeli ambassador who came to say pro-Israel stuff that liberals can’t stand???  How about the large crowd of people who came out to hear that ambassador speak, rather than to hear a bunch of Islamic fascist shout???  What about their right to nonviolently protest by hearing something that these 100 moral idiot professors didn’t want them to hear???

If you want to defend these slimeball professors, you first go to their class and shout them down every time they try to speak, just so you can watch them put their “tolerance” into action.

These professors aren’t making a courageous stand for non-violent protest.  They are cowards of the worst kind, endorsing and supporting the “right” of their student pawns to shout down speech that liberals do not want to tolerate and will not tolerate.

One of the good things about a free society is that you have the right to protest.  Another good thing about it is that a free society has the right to put you in jail for breaking the law.  And, of course, another good thing is that there are consequences in a free society, as people are either rewarded or punished for good or bad behavior, respectively.

You can scroll down the list and see the names of 100 UC Irvine faculty who clearly do not want a free society.  They don’t want to allow Israeli ambassadors the right to speak.  They don’t want the law to be applied to those who scream down speech they don’t like.  And they don’t believe in negative consequnces for those who fail to uphold he laws of a democracy.

Shame on the student protestors.  But far more shame on the faculty of UC Irvine and the entire university that supports these contemptible mal-educators.

Update, February 10, 2011: Here’s further evidence  (to go along with still further evidence) that the radical left and radical Islam are working together.  What the two movements have in common is totalitarianism, socialism, fascism, rabid intolerance for dissent and a belief in government as God.

Now Official: Arizona Shooter Jared Loughner A Bush-Hating Liberal

One can only look at the moral and psychological insanity of the left and whistle in amazement.

The demonic left heard that a Democrat U.S. Representative had been shot (never mind that she was one of the more conservative Democrats in the House) and immediately concluded that a Republican conservative tea party member – well, make that ALL Republicans, ALL conservatives and ALL tea party members – were guilty of the crime.

Democrats IMMEDIATELY resorted to the worst kind of demonizing, hatred and lies:

Arizona State Rep. Linda Lopez – a leftwing Democrat – stated:

”the shooter is likely, from what I’ve heard, an Afghan vet..”

Why would this vile woman falsely demonize our war veterans?

All you have to do is contemplate the title of an article I wrote on April 14, 2009: “Obama Administration Says Americans Should Fear Their Combat Veterans.” The article referred to an Obama DHS memo that warned that war veterans were to be considered dangerous rightwing extremists.

But that was a lie.  Jared Loughner never served a day in the military, let alone pull a combat tour.  In fact, the Army threw him out of one of their recruiting stations when they found out he was a pothead.

But let’s see.  According to the Gallup polling:

“Support for legalizing marijuana is much lower among Republicans than it is among Democrats…”

Rep. Lopez also immediately blamed the tea party for the assassination.

Paul Krugman demonstrated that all you have to do these days to get a Nobel Prize is be a far-left liberal ideologue.  His column demonizing conservatives for the Arizona shooting was published all of 2 hours after the event.  And like everything else the man has ever said, not a single word of it was anything short of propaganda (not to forget to mention the fact that Krugman has his own documented “gale of anger” problems).

For all the vicious hate and lies from the left, what we found when we actually looked at the facts is that Jared Loughner had a grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords dating back to 2007.  That grudge predated Sarah Palin; it predated the Tea Party movement; it predated the so-called “rightwing rhetoric” against Barack Obama.  And to go further, we find that, 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 in any of his writings or videos mentioned Sarah Palin, the tea party movement, ObamaCare, conservatives, or anything “right wing,” he DID repeatedly mention his über-leftwing belief that George Bush was responsible for engineering the 9/11 attacks.

So let’s set aside the circumstantial evidence that Jared Loughner was far more leftwing than he was rightwing.  Let’s set aside the fact that he was a devotee of The Communist Manifesto.  Let’s put aside the fact that “A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as ‘left wing’ and a pot head.'” Let’s put aside the fact that Loughner never listened to conservative talk radio, surfed conservative sights, or read conservative writers like Mark Levin.  Let’s even put aside the fact that Jared Loughner loved far-left conspiracy theory documentaries such as “Zeitgeist” and “Loose Change”.  In the words of a friend:

“There was a lot of talk about lucid dreaming and understanding reality. . . . And there were a lot of books and movies . . . things that I never would have heard about or watched — things like Loose Change about the 9/11 conspiracy.”

According to reviews, Zeitgeist is anti-Christian, anti-George Bush and anti-capitalism.  And I just scratch my head bleeding wondering which of the two parties would be those three things.  The plot of Loose Change can be summed up in three words” Bush did it.

Let’s put aside that Jared Loughner never bothered with rightwing stuff.  Let’s put aside that Jared Loughner filled his sick mind with leftwing stuff.

Let’s just put aside the facts which all line up to say that if Jared Loughner was anything, he was a far-left liberal loon.

And let’s just put the icing on the cake.  Was Jared Loughner a conservative or was he a liberal?  Let’s ask the liberal “newspaper of record,” a.k.a. The New York Times:

“He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.”

Bingo.  If The New York Slimes says it, it clearly must be true.

Jared Loughner was a liberal.

If you listen to or watch or read any source that ever once mentioned that right wing rhetoric or conservative anger or any such thing contributed to the Tucson, Arizona shooting, you are tuning in to a demonstrated source of propaganda and lies.

Every Democrat politician (and like the demons who called themselves “Legion, for we are many” in Luke 8:30, they are legion) and mainstream media figure who alluded to conservative anger in this tragedy should be forced to resign in disgrace for their disgrace of the truth.

Democrat Tucson Shooting Victim Arrested For Death Threat Against Tea Party Spokesman

This is hopefully turning into a nightmare for the unhinged left (or should I just dispense with the need for redundant adjectives and simply say ‘the left’?) following their despicable demonization of conservatives as they sought to exploit the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona.

First we learned enough details in the hours following the massacre to realize that, if anything, shooter Jared Loughner was leftwing rather than being any kind of conservative.

Second, there is the fact 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.  And to go further, we find that, 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 in any of his writings or videos mentioned Sarah Palin, the tea party movement, ObamaCare, conservatives, or anything “right wing,” he DID repeatedly mention his über-leftwing 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.

None of that stopped the immoral and hypocrite left from loudly denouncing conservatives for somehow being responsible for the shooting.  Because facts are irrelevant to these people, and all that matters is their exploitation of even the worst tragedies for their political ends.

If there wasn’t already a “strike three,” this latest surely qualifies:

(KGUN) –The meeting room at St. Odilia’s Catholic Church on the city’s northwest side was packed with local dignitaries, witnesses to the mass shooting Jan. 8, some of the witnesses to the shootings and the first responders to the scene for a taping of an ABC-TV special, a town hall event, at 11 a.m. Saturday. Host of the program, This Week, is Christianne Amanpour. The show will air at 7 a.m. Sunday on KGUN9-TV.

…

Toward the end of the town hall meeting Saturday morning, one of the shooting victims, J. Eric Fuller, took exception to comments by two of the speakers: Ariz. state Rep. Terri Proud, a Dist. 26 Republican, and Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries.

According to sheriff’s deputies at the scene, Fuller took a photo of Humphries and said, “You’re Dead.”

Deputies immediately escorted Fuller from the room.

Pima County Sheriff’s spokesman Jason Ogan said later Saturday that Fuller has been charged with threats and intimidation and he also will be charged with disorderly conduct.

Among the dignitaries at the town hall taping were Mayor Bob Walkup, U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva and former Congressman Jim Kolbe.

ABC News dubbed the town hall, “After the Tragedy: An American Conversation Continued.”

A press released stated that the event will restart the conversation that Giffords began.  “Among those who will join the Town Hall: family members of victims, citizens who took heroic action and community leaders,” the press release stated.

That’s right: after all the denunciation of “rightwing hate,” it turns out that the ONLY actual political hate and death threats associated in any way with the Tucson shooting came out of the mouth of A DEMOCRAT and was aimed at a Republican Representative and at a Tea Party spokesman.

But don’t worry; I’m sure it didn’t affect Christianne Amanpour’s biased leftwing propaganda that it’s only the rightwing that practices hate in any way.  She’s long-since immunized herself against actual reality.

It literally happened on camera, so poor leftwing loon Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had absolutely no choice but to arrest fellow leftwing loon James Eric Fuller and prove how full of crap his “anti-conservative rhetoric” rhetoric was.

Remember, dozens of elected Democrat officials and HUNDREDS of mainstream media “journalists” repeatedly denounced the “climate of hate” created by the political right.  It doesn’t matter which network you want to point at: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, you name it; they ALL despicably targeted conservatives in general and conservatives in particular (e.g., Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh). And what we now know is that the whole rotten bunch of them are the worst kind of hypocrites and liars.

There’s more here that came out from the Associated Press:

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. […]

He also lashed out at conservative Republicans for “Second Amendment activism,” arguing it set the stage for the shooting. […]

Later, he showed up at the home of accused gunman Jared Loughner, who lived within a half-mile of Fuller.

“He said he was going to forgive him for shooting him,” Richard Elder, 86, a retired medical mechanic who lives next door to Fuller, told The Associated Press Sunday. “If anyone shot me, I don’t think I’d say, ‘Hey feller, that’s alright.'”

Okay, so this liberal flew who flew into a rage and literally threatened the life of a conservative for the simple reason that he (along with another elected representative who could be next to be murdered) believed in the 2nd Amendment.  And they deserve to die for that.  But this “self-described liberal” who is so intolerant of conservatives that he’s screaming “You’re dead!” and calling them “whores” decides to forgive who? Just the murderous psychopathic vermin who went on a shooting rampage.

And there is your quintessential liberal moral insanity: forgive the sociopathic drug-addict murderer, forgive the terrorists; when it comes to “punishing your enemies” – as Obama described – it refers to American conservatives.

So when it comes to the last mass-murdering psychopathic psychiatrist named Nidal Malik Hasan – who shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and who had business cards bearing the message “Soldier of Allah” while murdering 13 American soldiers and wounding 28 – Democrats told us not to jump to any conclusions, etc. etc.  But the moment they had an opportunity to “punish their enemies” (i.e. conservatives), well boy oh boy the fangs and the hell in their souls came out.

That’s who “the enemy” is.  Not America’s enemies; the Democrat Party’s enemies.

If you bother to stop watching the Joseph Goebbels media-machine and learn the truth, what you find is that there is a long and profound history of violence and threats of violence coming from the left, not the right.

Barack Obama gave a speech for which he was widely praised even by conservatives Wednesday night in a memorial for the Tucson shooting victims at the University of Arizona.  Do you know why he was so praised by conservatives?  Because, unlike EVERY SINGLE OTHER TIME, a Democrat passed up the opportunity to demonize Republicans for an act of random violence.  And should you really get praised for not doing something that is immoral and despicable in the first place???

But then we find that even here, Barack Obama could not rise even inches above all the political garbage that his party had just launched all around him: we find that the slogan used at the memorial event – and since when did memorial services get slogans, anyway? – was nothing more than a campaign slogan used by Obama’s Organizing for America in 2008.

I can’t wait for the day when Democrats develop the capacity for self-reflection and personal shame.  Because you people ought to be absolutely ashamed at yourselves for what you’ve done this past week.

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.”

Amazing: Liberals Show They Are Even MORE Intolerant And Violent Than Neo-Nazis

This is a really amazing story.  As loathsome as Neo-Nazis are, and as hateful as they are, they are actually surpassed by garden variety American liberals.

Do you remember mostly Hispanic protesters marching to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants (and also see here)?  Well, Neo-Nazis think they have a right to protest too.  And, of course, American liberals thought that Neo-Nazis had every right to march when they were marching through a town filled with Jewish death camp survivors.

The same First Amendment free speech rights that gave the one group the right to protest give the other group the right to protest, too.  At least, that has always been how it was supposed to work.  And that was what leftist protesters proclaimed when they were out protesting a message that many others didn’t like.

Not that liberals give a damn about genuine fundamental rights that apply equally to all citizens.  They want total power and total control, and to hell with anyone who opposes any part of their agenda.  They launch protest after protest until they gain power, and then they move to squelch the right to protest.

The thing I want to emphasize today is – when we consider Neo-Nazis and American liberals qua protesters – which side is actually more fundamentally intolerant and reactionary?

Apr 17, 2010 11:45 pm US/Eastern
Neo-Nazis, Counter-Demonstrators Square Off In LA
White Supremacists’ Rally Against Immigration Meets Resistance From Hundreds Of Demonstrators
LOS ANGELES (AP)

Police block an angry crowd of counter-protesters after the neo-Nazi group, The American National Socialist Movement, held a rally in front of the Los Angeles City Hall, on April 17, 2010.

Let me interrupt this article with a very important message:

Note that this isn’t the right wing versus the left wing.  This is, rather, the left wing versus another group of the left wing.  You might say that it is the right wing of the extreme left versus the left wing of the extreme left.

I would also point out that Nazism is and always HAS BEEN a leftwing movement.  The primary difference between Nazis (i.e., the “National Socialist German Workers Party”) and Marxists (e.g., the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”) was that the former group wanted socialism in a nationalist manner, and the latter wanted socialism in an internationalist manner.

The Marxists said, “Workers of the world unite!“, which was just what Andy Stern of the SEIU – who visited Barack Obama in the White House more than ANYONE – said.

Which is to say that, currently, Marxism is the form of radical socialism most in vogue with the American left.  It is the form of socialism that the current occupant of the White House clearly favors.

The last thing I’d point out is that the Neo-Nazis of “The American National Socialist Movement” want socialism for white nationalist Aryans; conservatives don’t want socialism for ANYBODY in America.  We want the socialism that the Nazis, fascists, Marxist and communists wanted the hell out.

Sorry for interrupting.  Let’s continue.

A white supremacist group rallied against illegal immigration in downtown Los Angeles Saturday as hundreds of counter-protestors gathered to shout them down in a tense standoff that included several arrests, thrown rocks and police in riot gear.

Oops.  Have to stop again.  And not just to point out that the Associated Press should have people who at least know how to spell “protesters” to write about protests.

Are the Neo-Nazis a white supremacist group?  Of course they are; only a fool would argue that they aren’t.  Then again, there ARE a great many fools in the country.  So, yeah, while many of these Neo-Nazis would deny being “white supremacists” and pontificate and filibuster about other issues ad nauseum, let’s just agree that they are white supremacists.  But what about the other side?

What we have on the other side are “Latino supremacists.”  There’s the powerful Latino group “La Raza,” which means “the race.” Can you even imagine how a racial group that calls itself “The Race” isn’t racist?  There’s the term “reconquista” being dragged out again, which means “reconquest” of Southwestern America by Mexicans.” There’s thousands of Mexican protesters marching on American soil and demanding rights and privileges and concessions be granted to them by “white” Americans.  Among other things, they argue that the Mexican government has a right to diligently protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants, but that the American government has no right to similarly protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants.  They argue that Mexico and other Latin American countries have a right to be sovereign nations, but that America must become an “open borders” non-country.  There’s the waving the Mexican flag above an American flag which they hang upside down in mockery.

I don’t mind for a second the media calling Neo-Nazis “white supremacists.”  Just be honest and call BOTH SIDES what they are.

And let’s also realize that the theme of one group of leftists opposing another comes up again.  The so-called “pro-immigration” events were organized by COMMUNISTS.

Sorry to interrupt again.  Moving on:

Police officers stood between the white supremacists and counter-demonstrators on the south lawn of Los Angeles’ City Hall, where about 50 members of the National Socialist Movement waved American flags and swastika banners for about an hour.

The white supremacists, many of them wearing flack helmets and black military fatigue uniforms, shouted “Sieg Heil” before each of their speakers took the podium to taunt counter-protestors with racial, anti-Semitic and misogynistic epithets.

“We will meet you head on,” one of the white supremacists, whose name could not be made out over the fuzzy public address system, warned the crowd from behind several phalanxes of police in riot gear.

Members of the Detroit-based group said they picked the location for their rally because of Los Angeles’ large immigrant population. They accused some of the immigrants of stealing jobs and committing crimes.

Group members also said they were reacting to the recent number of street marches across the country encouraging legislators to enact reform that includes amnesty for some illegal immigrants.

Oh, oh.  Have to stop again.  Just long enough to point out that all the pro-immigration and pro-amnesty street marches are apparently fine.  It’s just the any street march that in any way opposes the leftwing agenda that must be attacked and vilified.  Whether it’s Neo-Nazis advancing their favorite form of socialism or whether it’s little old ladies who want to advocate limited government.

Moving on.

National Socialist Movement regional director Jeffrey Russell Hall announced that the group would begin backing political candidates who agreed with their anti-immigrant message.

But much of the white supremacists’ words were drowned out by such chants as “Hey hey, ho ho, Nazi scum have got to go” from the larger crowd of about 500 counter-protestors who held signs that read “Nazis: Get Out of Los Angeles” and “Racists Are Ignorant.”

There was a brief flare-up of violence before the speakers arrived. A shirtless man was seen being escorted to safety behind police lines by a plainclothes officer as counter-protesters punched and grabbed at him. Blood could be seen at the base of the man’s neck.

National Lawyers Guild executive director James Lafferty, who attended both as a legal observer and counter-protestor, said he saw the man get into a fight with crowd members who saw his Nazi lightning bolt tattoos.

Police Commander David Doan said a second man who crowd members believed was sympathetic with the white supremacists was also assaulted during the rally. Both men were treated for minor injuries at a hospital and released.

As the rally ended, counter-protestors hurled rocks, branches and other items over the police line and into a parking lot where the white supremacists’ had left their cars.

Some members of the group had trouble starting a black Ford Mustang and attempted to hook up jumper cables to their engine. They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.

The white supremacists eventually gave up and pushed their car away so they could jump-start it out of range of the projectiles.

Doan said three or four counter-protestors were arrested for throwing items.

Yes, that’s right.  The group that peacefully protested, the group that followed the rules, was the Neo-Nazis.  The group that was violent and intolerant were the liberals.

This sentence is particularly heartbreaking:

“They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.”

Can you even imagine that swastikas actually became the superior moral symbol during the day in that it was employed as a protective shield against a group who was using employing a violent symbol of rocks designed to attack and create injury?

Who ever would have thought that there was a group more loathsome than Neo-Nazis?  Personally, I never would have dreamed such a thing could ever happen in America.

But it happened.  And it happened even as peaceful Tea Party protesters are routinely targeted as somehow being tied to “violence.”

Actual Leftwing Violence Keeps Piling Up While Media Focuses On ‘Threat’ From Tea Parties

Republicans and Tea Party movement people keep getting demonized as being racist and violent.  The only problem with that is that all the actual evidence is on the side of the fact that it’s the DEMOCRATS and liberals who are racist and violent.

First the “racist” thing.  You want to see naked racism on display?  Look here.  You want to see powerful Democrats stating racist viewpoints?  Look here.  You want to see which party has pretty much ALWAYS been the official party of racism?  Look here.

There was plenty of violence last year.  Guess which side was behind virtually ALL of it?  Look here.  There has been quite a big of violence this year, too.  Guess who has been behind that?  Look here.

Recently Bobby Jindal’s campaign finance manager and her boyfriend were severely beaten by protesters outside a Republican leadership dinner for being conservative.

Here’s an account of the attack, along with an account by a photographer along with pictures and video of an ugly liberal protest outside the dinner:

Bautch’s leg was broken and Brown incurred a broken jaw and nose as well as a concussion.

The Hayride reports that a source who visited Bautsch at the hospital the day after the attack says they were told the couple was attacked for wearing Palin buttons:

Two people at the Brennan’s event have now confirmed that the protest had largely broken up by the time it ended, but we also understand from someone who visited Allee Bautsch in the hospital Saturday morning that she and Brown were followed and attacked expressly because they had Palin pins on (she heard one of the attackers say “Let’s get them, they have Palin pins on” – so the attack WAS politically motivated as its victims understood it. It was not a mugging, it was not an argument gone wrong and it was not a bar fight.

The organizer of the event himself was targeted and pursued, but managed to elude the beating that befell Bautsch and her boyfriend.

In an interview this afternoon, Louisiana GOP Chair Roger Villere, Jr. told Lincoln Parish News Online he and several others were pursued by protesters last Friday night after a political fundraiser, but managed to get into a cab and avoid the mob. “We started to leave out the front door after the event, but the protesters had us blocked – there were six of us in our group – so we went out through the kitchen,” Villere said. Once they got outside, the protesters spotted them and began to pursue them, but they managed to get into a cab and avoid confrontation.

Later in the evening Allee Bautsch and Joe Brown were brutally beaten on the sidewalk outside the Louisiana State Supreme Court building, mere steps away from where protests had taken place.

All the actual violence and racism is coming out of the left, but the mainstream media is dutifully concealing those facts and instead reporting on innuendo that the Tea Parties are “rightwing” and therefore “dangerous.”

Between the “Big Lie” tactic and the “Operation Himmler” strategy, the Democrats seem to have their political strategy, and the mainstream propagandists seem to have their reporting strategy.

Update,, April 19: A lot of new information has come out regarding the Allee Bautsch attack, and ALL of it supports the position described in this article.

Will Mainstream Media Attack Left Over Murder Of Pro-Life Activist?

“Pro-Choice Terrorist Murders Pro-Life Activist.”

That would be a genuinely incredible headline to see on CNN, MSNBC, or, heck, even Fox News, wouldn’t it?

Not going to happen.  It would mean that the mainstream media actually had the capacity for balance – and it doesn’t.

A Factiva search for mainstream media articles on the murder of Jim Pouillon returned a total of 19 hits; by contrast, the murder of abortionist Dr. George Tiller turned up 643 hits.  That’s “balance” for you.  The mainline media’s project is to tarnish the right with intolerance, hate, and murder.  And they simply aren’t willing to entertain any facts that conflict with their chosen narrative.

The fact that the murder occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 makes the “terrorist” angle even more obvious – but the mainstream media will avoid that angle like Superman avoids kryptonite.

We’re told of the murderer: “Mr. Drake did not believe children should view the graphic material on the signs Mr. Pouillon carried.”  But it was a “crime of hate, not a hate crime.”  What a ridiculous rationalization!  They’re trying to say that the murderer wasn’t ideological about abortion, but simply quibbled over Pouillon’s sign.

Jim Pouillon was murdered because he was a pro-life protester.  Pure and simple.  To his credit (in pointing out the obvious), even Barack Obama – who had a 100% lifetime NARAL support record – recognizes the fact.  The mainstream media, which fell all over itself to condemn the “climate of hate” of the right and the pro-life movement, refuses to turn its lens on the left and the pro-abortion movement.

We have known for years that the mainstream media have been ideological supporters of the pro-abortion movement, and ideological opponents of the pro-life movement.  And the dishonest mainstream media is revealing how corrupt they are yet again as they virtually ignore the murder of a pro-life activist, and utterly refuse to see the murder as an act of leftwing hate.

A prominent pro-life activist was shot repeatedly and murdered outside of a high school, and the media that came absolutely unglued over “rightwing extremists,” ” intolerance,” “hate,” “domestic terrorism,” etc. etc. etc. will very likely not even mention it.  They just don’t have the integrity.  And they certainly will not use the “leftwing” pejoratives to denounce the murder of a pro-life activist the same way they denounced the “rightwing” for the murder of abortionist Dr. George Tiller.

Anti-abortion activist shot in front of Owosso High School
by Elizabeth Shaw | Flint Journal
Friday September 11, 2009

OWOSSO, Michigan — State police at the Corunna post have confirmed a well-known anti-abortion activist was shot multiple times and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School.

The victim’s identity has not yet been released but the shooting occurred around 7:30 a.m., after most students were off the buses and safely inside the building, said Owosso schools transportation supervisor Jayne Campbell.

State police also confirmed that a suspect was taken into custody about 8:15 a.m. at the suspect’s home.

Owosso High School secretary Wendy Smith said the students remain in lockdown this morning and confirmed that no students were involved and all are safe with classes going on as normal. The shooting did not occur on school property, Smith said.

Meanwhile, police have completely ringed with police tape a section of North Street in front of the school.

A black car can be seen parked at the corner of North and Whitehaven streets, where a portable oxygen tank is lying in a front yard next to a large sign bearing the image of a baby and the word “Life.”

Again, the victim has since been revealed to be James Pullion.

Here is a link to MSNBC’s senior cockroach Keith Olbermann loudly demonizing conservatives, Bill O’Reilly, the pro-life movement, rightwing extremists, hate speech, and whatever else the demons whispered in his ear for him to repeat.  And he was hardly alone in the hatefest.

Mind you, even the media’s presentation of this activist is typical of the left: one who favors the killing of babies in the womb is “pro-choice,” standing for something.  But one who stands up for life is depicted as being “anti.”  It would be nice if the media that likes the term “anti abortion” would choose a similar term such as “anti life” to describe what they invariably call the “pro choice” movement.

We’re seeing it depicted in the health care debate.  Liberals are “pro,” and conservatives are “anti.”  The fact of the matter is I’m actually “pro” a lot of things regarding health care.  I’m “pro” for tort reform, for ending mandates and allowing competition among the 1300 private insurers, for dealing with the problems caused by illegal immigration relating to health care, for keeping government socialism from taking over more of the system than it already has, and a lot of other things.  And liberals are “anti” a lot of things, aren’t they?  But it’s more rhetorically effective for the mainline media to describe me as a “health care opponent” belonging to “the party of no.”

One lone nutjob shot Dr. Tiller, and Keith Olbermann made an entire movement responsible for the act.  What do you want to bet this dishonest purveyor of propaganda at a dishonest network will somehow find the murder of a well-known pro-life activist as nothing to become concerned about?

Every single mainstream media, every single liberal blogger, everyone period, that used the murder of Dr. Tiller to attack the right will now either similarly demonize themselves for their “leftwing terrorist murderer,” or else stand forever condemned of hypocrisy, demagoguery, and propaganda.

Let me provide as an example the partial-birth-loving abortionist who is replacing Dr. Tiller – Dr. Leroy Carhart:

Dr. Carhart calls the murderer of his beloved colleague a “terrorist” saying his friend’s death is  “a declaration of war” on the part of radical anti-abortion activists whom he calls “fundamentalist terrorists . . . no different from al-Qaida, the Taliban or any of them.”

Is this guy going to have the intellectual and moral decency to demonize radical pro-abortion activists as a bunch of “fundamentalist terrorists… no different from al-Qaida,” et al, or is he going to be the hypocritical, dishonest ideologue slimebag that I fully expect him to be?

Obviously, that amounts to a rhetorical question, doesn’t it?

Well, allow me to provide a newsflash.  It is not “the left’s” fault that this pro-life activist was murdered.  It was the fault of one deranged man.

The left was despicable beyond the pale for not recognizing that fact when Dr. Tiller was murdered.

I suppose that is one of the big things that differentiates the right from the left.  For the left, individual identity, individual responsibility, amounts to a social construct.  If an abortionist is murdered, well, the blame must extend to everyone who in any way believes abortion is wrong and speaks out.  You can’t just hold one man accountable for his actions, after all.  Rather, you are a soulless meat puppet driven entirely by DNA and social conditioning.  “O’Reilly made me do it.”

At least, you can’t if he comes from the political right – and his actions are a convenient target for liberal propaganda and demagoguery.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe profoundly in individual identity and individual responsibility.  Does the left pump out hatred by the tonnage?  Sure it does.  But when some nut commits murder or performs some other hateful act, it is THAT person who bears the full weight of responsibility for his or her actions.  And that person alone.

So allow me to pat myself on the back for my moral superiority to Keith Olbermann and everyone like him as I refuse to attribute their “anti-choice” characterization of this martyr for the pro-life cause as being the reason for his murder.  Because whoever shot this pro-life activist HAD a choice – and chose to murder.

I’m the one who affirms choice, while demagogues like Olbermann and Dr. Carhart – who call me “anti-choice” for my pro-life stand – in all actuality believe that people don’t really have a “choice” at all, but are merely robots programmed by Bill O’Reilly or some other favored bogeyman.

The simple fact of the matter is that the left is “pro-choice” when it suits their agenda, and profoundly anti-choice the rest of the time.

So, go ahead, Keith Olbermann.  I’m waiting to hear your “balanced” coverage of the murder of a pro-life activist.

I leave you with a profound statement from the “terrorist” “anti-choice” position:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

Democrats’ Effort To Fearmonger Path To Socialized Medicine Has Been Tried Before

In the mainstream media narrative, Sarah Palin is demonized as “about half a whack job” and her statement about “death panels” is literally interpreted in a way I’d love to see them apply JUST ONCE to the Constitution.  Conservatives were denounced as an “angry mob,” as “un-American,” and as exhibiting Nazi characteristics by the Democrat Speaker of the House.

The media loves to talk about rightwing fearmongering.

I’d like to say a little more about leftwing fearmongering.

How about the one that we need to pass health care reform in order to get our economy out of the toilet?

A smattering of various Obama “warnings” fearmongering health care:

– “We must lay a new foundation for future growth and prosperity, and a key pillar of a new foundation is health insurance reform.”

– Obama cast retooling the U.S. health-care system as crucial to the nation’s economic success. Reform would help rein in the national deficit and rebuild the economy, he argued, in a way that would help middle-class workers, whose wages have stagnated in recent years largely because of spiraling health-care costs.

– WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama warned on Thursday that the United States would not rebuild its economy unless political leaders joined him immediately on a perilous political drive for healthcare reform.

– President Obama warned Wednesday night that health-care reform is central to rebuilding the economy “stronger than before,” and without congressional action on health-care reform, “We’re guaranteed to see Medicare and Medicaid basically break the federal budget.”

And our last Obama “warning”:

“The country has to reform its health care system or else not only are you going to continue to have people really going through a hard time, we’re also going see a continuing escalation of our budget problems that can’t get under control,” Obama told Moran. “I think America has to win it here.”

In the dialogue surrounding health care, Obama warned against “scare tactics,” which he said are fostering anxiety and serving to distract Americans from the plan’s principles.

What’s nice about the last one is that it includes fearmongering on the one hand with warning against “scare tactics” on the other.  Obama tells us one the one hand that our economy will plummet unless we implement ObamaCare, and then demonizes everyone who has a different fearmongering message.

It doesn’t matter that Obama’s urgings that we pass health care “reform” will lower our costs and boost are economy are entirely false:

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose “the sort of fundamental changes” necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory — or cost curve — of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, “The curve is being raised.” His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation’s bleak budget outlook even worse.

It also doesn’t seem to matter that, given that the “reforms” Obama is seeking wouldn’t take effect until at least 2013, there is little reason to rush headlong into anything other than opportunistic partisan demagoguery.  And yet Barack Obama was out there rushing “reform” and calling August 1st “the people’s deadline” even as polls showed “the people” overwhelmingly wanting Congress to take time crafting health care legislation.

Interestingly, these tricks of fearmongering health care “reform” in the name of averting economic calamity and trying to rush the process through have been tried before.  Think Bill Clinton, First Inaugural Address, 1993:

But all of our efforts to strengthen the economy will fail—let me say this again; I feel so strongly about this—all of our efforts to strengthen the economy will fail unless we also take this year, not next year, not 5 years from now but this year, bold steps to reform our health care system.

In 1992, we spent 14 percent of our income on health care, more than 30 percent more than any other country in the world, and yet we were the only advanced nation that did not provide a basic package of health care benefits to all of its citizens. Unless we change the present pattern, 50 percent of the growth in the deficit between now and the year 2000 will be in health care costs. By the year 2000 almost 20 percent of our income will be in health care. Our families will never be secure, our businesses will never be strong, and our Government will never again be fully solvent until we tackle the health care crisis. We must do it this year.

The combination of the rising cost of care and the lack of care and the fear of losing care are endangering the security and the very lives of millions of our people. And they are weakening our economy every day. Reducing health care costs can liberate literally hundreds of billions of dollars for new investment in growth and jobs. Bringing health costs in line with inflation would do more for the private sector in this country than any tax cut we could give and any spending program we could promote. Reforming health care over the long run is critically essential to reducing not only our deficit but to expanding investment in America.

What’s interesting about this is that liberals depict the Clinton years as the time when the streets were lined with gold and every child went to bed in a warm house with a full tummy.

So the point would obviously be, either Clinton was fearmongering health care in a way that did not turn out to be true at all, or the “glorious Clinton economy” is itself a fabrication.  Because somehow Bill Clinton had to flounder along with no health care reform.

We need to put some things into historic perspective: 1) Bill Clinton so mismanaged the country his first two years in office that it led to the largest political tsunami ever experienced in American history as Republicans took over in an unprecedented landslide 1994 election.  2) Many of the benefits that Bill Clinton has received credit for were actually enacted by the Republican Congress (example: welfare reform).  3) Bill Clinton benefited from an economy that was just recovering from a severe recession at the end of the Bush I administration as Clinton took over.  By contrast, George Bush II – like Barack Obama now – had a significant recession handed to him that will count against his average performance.  In President Bush’s case, that recession was compounded by the worst attack on American soil in nearly 200 years  in the 9/11 terror attack.  4) Bill Clinton changed the way unemployment figures were calculated back in 1994 – making comparisons to previous eras appear far more rosy than they really were.  5) The “Clinton Budget Surplus” is in reality a myth.  In actuality, Clinton created a smoke and mirror illusion by transferring “public debt” costs which are calculated as part of the budget over to “intergovernmental holdings” (eg., by borrowing from Social Security) which are not counted as part of the public debt.

I might also point out that Bill Clinton’s famous statement from his State of the Union Speech in January 1996 – “THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS OVER” – tacitly recognized the new Republican era, and which in reality was the ultimate reason why the Clinton economy became ultimately successful.

Democrats were wiped out in 1994 as Republicans swept into power when Americans became fed up with Democrat incompetence and massive spending.  And Bill Clinton was wise enough to recognize the handwriting on the wall.  As a result, he transitioned into a fiscal moderate and avoided the fate of his party.

But now the man who recognized that “The era of big government is over” is back to his pre-1994 ways.  Bill Clinton has joined Barack Obama with the very same big spending, big government socialistic mindset that brought the Democrats to such historic disaster in 1994.

There are many things we can do to improve our health care system.  That goes without saying.  But the Democrat’s presentation that opposing their system is opposing “change” or “reform” is simply asinine.  If any change is better than our present course, than we should just nuke ourselves and be done with it: that would be “change,” after all.  We need to recognize that there is good reform and there is bad reform – and government-run health care is simply “bad” reform.

ObamaCare suffers from massive policy problems that go right to the heart of the greater debate surrounding the size of government, the size of Obama’s unprecedented deficits, and the unsustainable size of our debt.  Democrats have a real problem explaining how they are going to spend $1.6 trillion and yet bring down costs – especially given the CBO’s damning analysis.  They have a problem explaining how they’re going to take hundreds of millions out of Medicare and yet not affect the quality of care to Medicare beneficiaries.  And they have a problem explaining how they’re not going to end up transferring over a hundred million Americans out of their employee-based health care and into the “public option” when good analysis sees exactly that happening (and see also here).

The American people listened to Obama fearmonger his way to the gigantic stimulus package that will ultimately cost Americans $3.27 trillion.  The stimulus has been deemed by the American people as being so unsuccessful that fully 72% of Americans now say “returning the unused portion of the $787 billion dollar stimulus to taxpayers would do more to boost the economy than having the government spend it.”  People are turning against what they increasingly recognize as big government socialism.

We need to STOP health care “reform” until it includes tort reform such as loser pays, until it includes an end to state and federal mandates, until it includes allowing our 1300 private insurance companies to compete across state lines.  And we need to STOP health care “reform” until it EXCLUDES giving full medical coverage to more than 12 million illegal immigrants, until it excludes “public options,” excludes “Co-Ops,” and excludes any other device that becomes a backdoor guarantee to government health care.

Holocaust Museum Shooting: What Makes Someone ‘Rightwing’?

Today, an 89-year old documented nut entered the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.  I have no idea what the politics of Stephen Tyrone Jones were, but the man serving as a guard died a hero: he died standing in the way of this evil man and the innocent and unarmed people he would have murdered.

A question immediately comes to mind: what side of the bowl did this nut inhabit?  Obviously he was a nut.  But was he a rightwing nut or a leftwing nut?

What the left want us to believe is that James von Brunn is a rightwing extremist.  Why?  Because he was an anti-Semite, and therefore a racist.  And racists, as everybody just knows, are rightwing.

This view became official government policy under the Obama administration.  Consider how the Department of Homeland Security under Janet Napolitano defined “rightwing extremism” versus “leftwing extremism,” according to the Associated Press:

In the report, right-wing extremism was defined as hate-motivated groups and movements, such as hatred of certain religions, racial or ethnic groups. “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the report said. […]

The department’s definition of left-wing extremism in the March 26 report includes a reference to violence, stating these groups that embrace anticapitalist, communist or socialist beliefs seek “to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes.”

So, based on that, where do you pidgeon-hole an Anti-Semitic racist like von Brunn?  Read both definitions and it’s a no-brainer.  “Hatred of certain religions, racial, or ethnic groups.”  Check, check, and check.  James von Brunn is a rightwing extremist.  Just ask Janet Napolitano.

Only that’s completely asinine.

An article by Michelle Malkin shows just how profoundly dishonest and biased the “assessment” by the Obama DHS truly is.

Let’s start with Antisemitism and polling data from a December 2008 Rasmussen survey:

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans back Israel’s decision to take military action against the Palestinians, but only half as many Democrats (31%) agree. A majority of Democrats (55%) say Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution first, a view shared by just 27% of Republicans.

While 75% of Republicans say Israel is an ally of the United States, just 55% of Democrats agree. Seven percent (7%) of Democrats say Israel is an enemy of America, but only one percent (1%) of Republicans say the same. For 21% of Republicans, Israel is somewhere in between, and 28% of Democrats agree.

And this difference in views toward Israel and Jews is fairly established and consistent, as a Gallup survey from April 2002 shows:

The [04/17/2002 Gallup] survey of 1,009 adults conducted on April 5-7 found that 67 percent of Republicans side with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, compared to 45% of Democrats. Support for the Palestinians is at 8% among Republicans, versus 21% among Democrats.

How can Republicans/conservatives be overwhelmingly more supportive of Israel than Democrats/liberals, and yet at the same time overwhelmingly more Anti-Semitic than Democrats/liberals?  How does that even begin to make sense?  As a conservative evangelical Christian, I support Israel precisely because it is a Jewish state.  I pray for the shalom of Jerusalem according to Psalm 122:6.  I believe in something called “evil” and realize that the history of Israel and of Jews reveals that they have been victims of it FAR MORE than perpetrators of it.  I constantly refer to the “Judeo-Christian worldview” that respects and cherishes the influence of Judaism on my Christian faith.

Frontpage Magazine has an article that reveals why those on the left – who deny most of why I support Israel – end up embracing racist and Anti-Semitic views.

Let me say more.  When Republican George Bush was president, fully 88% of Israeli Jews believed the president was “pro-Israel”; today under Democrat president Barack Obama, only 31% of Israeli Jews think so.

The profoundly Anti-Semitic Nation of Islam has long and strong ties to the Democratic Party, and to Barack Obama personally via his 23 year relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church and via his participation with the Million Man March.  THIS VERY DAY, Jeremiah Wright said he’s denied access to Obama.  Why?  Quote: “Rev. Jeremiah Wright says Jews are keeping him from talking to President Obama.”

One article reads: “THE Rev Jesse Jackson and several other black American leaders are calling for a halt to the anti-Semitic rants of members of the black Muslim group Nation of Islam, led by Louis Farrakhan.”  And yet that itself is laughable; Jesse Jackson is a man who HIMSELF has displayed deep Antisemitism.  He has been documented calling Jews “Hymies” and New York “Hymietown.”

How DARE anyone on the left accuse the right of being Anti-Semitic.  HOW DARE THEY!!!

And if Democrats want to label Republicans as “racist,” perhaps they should either abolish the “Congressional Black Caucas” or find where Republicans are hiding their equivalent  “Congressional White Caucus.”  And you might either denounce Congressional Black Caucus member Bobby Rush or find similar racist statements coming from Republicans.   Show us where Republican leaders openly demanded that a Caucasian receive a US Senate seat.

An article on Examiner.com shows that von Brunn was more more leftwing than rightwing.  Among other things, he despised George Bush, believed 9/11 was a Bush conspiracy, and railed against “neo-cons.”

Holocaust Museum shooter von Brunn a 9/11 ‘truther’ who hated ‘neo-cons’, Bush, McCain

The man accused of opening fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC on June 10, James W. von Brunn, left a trail of unhinged writings around the internet.

The anti-semitism of von Brunn is the first thing one notices when visiting these bizarre websites. However, like those of most “white supremacists”, many of von Brunn’s political views track “Left” rather than “Right.” Clearly, a re-evaluation of these obsolete definitions is long overdue.

For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other “neo-conservatives” in online essays. As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”. As well, even a cursory glance at “white supremacist” writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.

James von Brunn’s advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories also gives him an additional commonality with individuals on the far-left.

None of this will surprise readers of Jonah Goldberg‘s bestseller Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change , which clearly demonstrates that “fascism” of the kind advocated by the British National Party (BNP) and the likes of James W. von Brunn is just as likely to reflect “leftwing” views as “rightwing” ones.

In fact, antisemitism is something the New Left and the “Far Right” have had in common since the 1980s, which is why so many former leftists like David Horowitz defected from one side to the other during the Reagan era and beyond. It also helps explain the otherwise baffling alliance between the Left and radical Islam.

That this shooting occurred shortly after President Obama’s former mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, blamed “the Jews” for his lack of access to his former parishioner is a troubling confluence of events as well.

I’m not going to answer the question posed by my title: “What Makes Someone ‘Rightwing’?  But I’ll say ONE thing for certain.

It’s most definitely NOT “racism” or “Antisemitism.”  There’s just way too much of that crap going on on the part of the leftwing to possibly attribute it exclusively to the right.