Posts Tagged ‘protest’

Joe Wilson’s ‘You Lie!’ Over Illegal Immigrants Most True Statement During Obama Speech

September 11, 2009

When Barack Obama said in his speech, “The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” a sole Republican – Rep. Joe Wilson – burst out, “You lie!”

Wilson’s outburst was immediately denounced by the Republican leadership for its crudity and lack of statesmanship, and Wilson immediately apologized.  But Democrats just as immediately pounced on Wilson’s outburst as a foil to depict the Republican Party as “partisan” even as they depicted Obama as transcending such partisanship.  Democrats were so bent on playing rhetorical judo against the Republicans over Wilson that the news coverage of the “You lie!” statement literally surpassed Obama’s actual speech.

CNN also notes:

While it was the most attention-getting, Wilson’s shout wasn’t the only demonstration of displeasure made by Republicans during the speech.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, wore a sign around his neck that said, “What bill?” And when Obama asked Republicans to share their health reform ideas with him, a small group raised up a stack of papers above their heads.

The former protest marks the fact that, when Obama says “his plan” will or won’t do something, it should be pointed out that “his plan” or for that matter the Democrat’s plan in fact does not exist.  There’s no bill.  There’s no plan.  The latter points out that – while Obama and Democrats have repeatedly accused the Republicans of being the “party of no,” they have in fact officially submitted over two dozen of their own bills pertaining to health care in C0ngress.  It is blatantly dishonest for liberals to claim that Republicans haven’t attempted to contribute their own bills and ideas.  The fact that Democrats have shut Republicans out without debate is hardly the same thing as claiming that Republicans haven’t contributed anything.

It also doesn’t matter to most in the mainline media that Democrats loudly and repeatedly booed George Bush in his 2005 State of the Union – as this snippet reveals.  Partisanship and rude behavior only appear to count against Republicans.  The crap river only flows in one direction with the mainline media bias.

I’m sure everyone’s familiar with the rhyme, “Liar, liar, pants on fire.”  Someone’s pants are clearly on fire here.  The only question is whose: Joe Wilson’s or Barack Obama’s?

Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner, along with the Congressional Research Service, know whose pants are on fire:

Well, Mr. President, that idea must have been tucked under a stack of background briefing papers over there in the corner of the table because the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:
“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”

CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) knows whose pants are on fire:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the “research arm” for the United States Congress, issued a report validating an analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), that illegal aliens would be able to receive benefits under the House health care reform bill, America’s Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200).

The report, Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, states definitively, “H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens – whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently – participating in the Exchange.”  H.R. 3200 establishes a Health Insurance Exchange which would provide individuals and small businesses with access to health care plans, including the “public option” to be managed by the government.

CRS also confirms FAIR’s assessment that the House bill does not include a mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from receiving “affordability credits” that would subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. CRS specifically noted the absence “of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure.” Because the language is ambiguous, all CRS could reasonably conclude is that any eligibility determination would be the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner.

The CRS analysis comes after weeks of denials by Members of Congress that illegal aliens could receive benefits under the House bill. These denials were echoed by countless media and health care “experts” who dismissed public concerns as myths, or as politically orchestrated attacks.

“Case closed. Illegal aliens will be eligible to participate in the health care program offered by the House bill unless Congress acts to amend the bill,” stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “The loopholes and omissions in the House bill are not there by accident,” continued Stein. “These loopholes were intended to extend benefits to illegal aliens while allowing Members of Congress to deny those facts to the American people.”

The House Ways & Means Committee had the opportunity to include language that would have barred illegal aliens from enrolling in the proposed public option or receiving the affordability credits, but chose not to. An amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) would have applied the same eligibility verification procedures for coverage under H.R. 3200 that have been used for years to prove eligibility for Medicaid. That amendment was rejected by a party-line vote.

So, the bill would allow illegal immigrants to buy insurance on the national health insurance exchange, which is direct confirmation that “our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants.”  It’s really quite straightforward, all the media obfuscation to the contrary.

And Democrats have blocked every republican effort to prevent illegal immigrants from benefiting from the ObamaCare bill even as they have claimed that illegal immigrants won’t receive any coverage.

At least one Reuters journalist understands whose pants are on fire, given the title of his article, “Health Bill Could Benefit 6.6 Million Illegals“:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — As President Obama addresses the nation on health care reform, a new analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 6.6 million uninsured illegal immigrants could receive benefits under the House health reform bill (H.R. 3200). While the bill states that illegal immigrants are not eligible for the new taxpayer-funded affordability credits, there is nothing in the bill to enforce this provision.  Congress defeated efforts to require the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. More than 70 other programs of this kind use SAVE.

The report is available at http://www.CIS.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200.

And while Democrats may never publicly acknowledge the truth, a number of them are now aware of whose pants are really on fire:

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., was criticized for interrupting Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress to accuse the president of lying about his health care reform plan prohibiting coverage for illegal immigrants. Wilson quickly apologized, and the White House accepted the apology.

Wilson apologized again Thursday morning, though he also says a massive loophole could wind up in the health care bill: no requirement to prove citizenship for health care coverage.

Among three House committees to pass bills for health reform, only one expressly bans federal funding for proving health coverage to illegal immigrants.

“The Congressional Research Service has indicated that indeed the bills that are before Congress would include illegal aliens,” Wilson said. “And I think this is wrong.”

Indeed, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service study found that the House health care bill does not restrict illegal immigrants from receiving health care coverage.

House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner amplified the complaint that without proof of citizenship, illegal immigrants could be insured.

“There were two opportunities for House Democrats to make clear that illegal immigrants wouldn’t be covered by putting in requirements to show citizenships,” he said. “Both of those amendments were, in fact, rejected.”

In the Senate, Democrats in the so called “Gang of Six,” a group of bipartisan senators on the Senate Finance Committee which is the last panel yet to release its bill, began moving quickly to close the loophole that Wilson helped bring greater attention to.

Again, since there is no bill, we can’t know whether or not the loopholes that currently would allow illegal immigrants to get access to ObamaCare will be closed or not.

We can know that Democrats repeatedly refused to provide such closure of loopholes even over repeated Republican efforts to seek such closure.

And we also can know whose pants were on fire Wednesday night:  not Joe Wilson’s, but Barack Obama’s.

Joe Wilson’s emotional outburst was rude, unstatesmanlike, and politically stupid.  But it also had the virtue of being quite true in what amounted to a sea of half truths that amounted to whole lies.

Even the liberal mainline Associated Press was forced to declare in it’s fact check which in fact is the title of the article: “Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge.”

Advertisements

Bush, Obama, the Mainstream Media and the Iranian Election Demonstrations

June 21, 2009

Watching the mainstream media coverage of the demonstrations in Iran following their elections, you would think that the protests have been all about Obama and his Cairo speech delivered on June 4.

Barack Obama appeared to take great credit for whatever would happen when he delivered a rambling answer to a press question about what was happening in Iran prior to the election results being released (and Ahmadinejad being declared the winner):

“Uh, we are excited, uh, to see, uh, what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. And obviously after the speech, uh, that I made in Cairo, uh, we tried to send a clear message that, uh, we think there is the possibility of change, uhhh, aaaand — ehhh, yuh– oh – Ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide, but just a-as has been true in Lebanon, uh, what’s, uh — can be true in Iran as well is that you’re seeing, uh, people looking at new, uh, possibilities. And, uh, whoever ends up winning, uh, the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help, uh, advance, uh, our ability to engage them in new ways.”

But there are some major problems with the “Obama’s speech changed the world” thesis:

For one thing, Obama’s speech failed to offer any new changes in American policy. As an example, even PBS’ positive article on the speech confessed:

While President Obama’s speech contained no new policy proposals on the Middle East, he called upon Israelis and Palestinians alike to live up to their international obligations and to work towards a two-state solution.

And with all due respects, it’s not like Obama’s devoid of actual policy change “call” ignited the Islamic world.

Any many Muslims rightly said, “Nice speech, but let’s wait and see what Obama actually does.”

One late night comedic take on the speech a group of terrorists wearing masks and bandoleers of weapons and ammunition listening to Obama’s speech in front of a television. When Obama seemed to say something about offering peace, they got up, “high-fived” one another, and began to take off their weapons. But then, even as they were in the process of taking off their weapons, Obama seemed to say something that went against the grain of his immediately previous statement, so the terrorists shrugged and started putting on their weapons again.

Bottom line: the comedic take ended up with the terrorists still armed with all of their weapons, just as they had been prior to the speech.

Fausta’s blog dealt with some of what was missing from the speech:

1. The word TERRORIST. “Violent extremism” doesn’t happen on its own. It’s done by terrorists.

2. Details on closing Gitmo “by early next year.” Surely Pres. Obama realizes that it’s not enough to say “I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.” Where will those terrorists be sent? What will be the international reaction?

3. A firm position on women’s rights. As Peter Ladou said regarding the tepid language on this issue:

Is that a joke?With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters.

Most troubling of all, the speech lacked
4. An unequivocal, firm stance on democracy: A “commitment to governments that reflect the will of the people” is not enough. Tyrants since the dawn of history have been summoning the masses to demonstrate their regimes “reflect the will of the people.”

Additionally, the statement, “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone” is equivocating on a moral point. America, from its birth, has been a champion of democracy, and should remain stalwart in its position.

Did Obama truly think there was little or no difference between the so-called “glass ceiling” women might find in America with the stonings and mutilations of women all-too common in the Islamic world?

As to this last point, Charles Krauthammer – after citing specific examples of just such moral equivalency from Obama’s speech – says this:

Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He’s showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect.

Distorting history is not truth-telling, but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership, but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one’s own country.

Let me offer a rival explanation as to why Iranians are revolting against the results of the elections, even after the Ayatollah “sanctified” the results by claiming the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reflected a “divine assessment.”

How about the hard-fought-for result of an actual democracy in Iraq right next to Iran?

How about the fact that Iranians had the chance to see not one, but now several, freely-held elections with Iraqi people being able to victoriously hold up purple-ink-smudged fingers as proof that they had been able to freely vote for the candidates of their choice?

Just how is it that Obama’s speech is somehow more important than that?

Let’s not forget the fact that neither Barack Obama nor the mainstream media wanted the Iraqi people to be able to freely vote for the candidates of their choice. They opposed the toppling of dictator and tyrant butcher Saddam Hussein – who had murdered at a minimum 400,000 of his own people and buried them in mass graves – having the opportunity to vote that George Bush and the magnificent American military courageously won for them.

And these same people who opposed the establishment of an Iraqi democracy in the heart of the Arab world are now telling you that a damn SPEECH filled with meaningless moral equivalencies and devoid of substance or policy accomplished a change in the heart of the Iranian people?

Seriously?

The mainstream media gleefully covered every death and every failure in Iraq and continued to cover it – until President Bush and the American military began to turn things around. And then the coverage dried up. These dishonest peddlers of propaganda were unwilling to represent the effort in Iraq as successful.

You can go back and find the left predicting in 2003 that “Bush’s declared attempt to introduce democracy in Iraq by force seems set to fail.” In 2005 the naysayers who called hope for democracy in Iraq “the province of fools” abounded. Then you can find media elites in 2006 suggesting that the elections in Iraq are good news, but still not as good as it should have been. Now we have a full-fledged stable democracy in the heart of the Arab world, and it is seemingly irrelevant to whatever positive pro-democracy changes that might be taking place immediately around Iraq.

The mainstream media allowed the Democrat Party to literally cut-and-run from its earlier positions on Iraq without coverage or analysis. Democrats were allowed to be for the deposing of Saddam Hussein before they were against it. Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were allowed to claim “I believe that this war is lost“ while our troops were still fighting on foreign soil to secure victory.

Articles still condemning Bush for Iraq by the mainstream media continue to go for about a dime a dozen, but the Wall Street Journal on January 31st, 2009 offered this far more accurate and honest conclusion:

Say what you want to say about the administrative debacle the situation became after Saddam was ousted, but Saturday’s endeavor is a sign of a better Iraq in a region infested with despots and tightly-gripped political systems, where elections, if allowed, are not that different from those held under Saddam – sham, corrupt and pointless. Arab regimes across the Middle East and Arab people around the world who bristled when they saw Saddam toppled, and later executed — and who may still easily shrug off Iraq’s elections as unconstitutional for being held under U.S. military occupation — have a right to know what it means to have a sense of hope. True, Iraq was safe under the Baath regime and walking in Baghdad at any time of the day felt to me even safer than walking in some parts of New York now, but give me any police state in that region or elsewhere that doesn’t enjoy a relative sense of protection.

The left got to take credit for the good times, and blame Bush for the bad ones. On December 15, 2003, Hillary Clinton crowed upon the capture of Saddam Hussein:

“I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote.”

Hillary Clinton was for that war before she was against it. And the mainstream media – dishonest, deceitful, and disingenuous itself – allowed Hillary Clinton to be dishonest, deceitful, and disingenuous.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, prior to his declaration of defeat in Iraq, had justified the war in 2002 when “being tough” was politically in vogue. On October 9, 2002 he was on the record saying:

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

He was not only allowed to be for that war before he was against it by the media, he was allowed to utter outright treason by declaring a war our troops were still fighting “lost.”

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, said on October 10, 2002:

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

But the mainstream media allowed Nancy Pelosi to get away with the outright moral depravity of attacking President George Bush as a liar when she had publicly held the very same positions herself.

And now we have these same deceitful, dishonest demagogues ignoring the hard-fought accomplishments won under George Bush, and crediting an empty speech as the driving force behind any changes in the Islamic world.

Following the beginnings of the Iranian public demonstrations, even in the aftermath of public statements of condemnation by European leaders, Barack Obama had failed to take a public stand. EVEN FRANCE HAD DISPLAYED MORE COURAGE IN STANDING BEHIND THE IRANIAN PEOPLE THAN OBAMA.

Obama finally provided a weak statement of support for the Iranian people. But it was criticized as being not nearly enough. Finally, he offered a somewhat stronger statement, but only after both the House and the Senate passed strongly-worded resolutions:

Congress voted resoundingly Friday to condemn the Iranian government’s crackdown on protesters, sending a strong bipartisan signal to the White House that it wants less caution and more outrage.

Obama hasn’t been at the forefront of democracy for Iran; he has in fact been the Western and American leader most behind on the issue of supporting true democracy in Iran.

But we’re supposed to believe that it was an empty-worded speech from an empty suit on foreign policy that is rocking the Iranian world?

Don’t believe it for a nanosecond.

The Vicious Intolerance Of ‘Liberal Tolerance’ (Updated)

April 20, 2009

The heroes of the modern day liberal mindset: Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann, and Perez Hilton. In the name of tolerance, they are as intolerant as the universe is big.

Remember how liberals fallaciously attributed a quote to Thomas Jefferson that “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” to provide themselves a slick teflon media cover for attacking our troops and the war they were trying to win? Mark Steyn revealed the liberal deception and the media propaganda on that issue in his piece, “America’s hardboiled newsmen can’t get enough of the Thomas Jefferbunk.” Somehow all those “wise seekers of truth” that ostensibly fill the ranks of the media weren’t able to uncover the blatant historical falsehood that one liberal after another cited. “Truth” only matters when it hurts Republicans.

Democrats got us into World War I, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into World War II, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into Korea, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into Vietnam, and Republicans supported them. It is long-standing tradition to support a nation and its leaders in time of war. And, so, yeah, Republicans were rather bitter when Democrats – given that 29 of 50 Democrat Senators voted FOR the Iraq War; and given the many statements they had made in support of the need to confront and remove Saddam Hussein (see also here and here) – literally proclaimed defeat, pronounced our innocent soldiers as war criminals and cold-blooded murderers, and labeled Bush a liar and a war criminal.

“Highest form of patriotism”? Is THAT what the “highest form of patriotism” looks like? Do ya think? If Abraham Lincoln (a Republican, by the way) had been president instead of Bush, he would have thrown these rat bastards in jail for their vile undermining of a war while our troops were fighting and dying to win it.

Republicans expected bi-partisanship and support in dealing with a threat that both Republicans and Democrats had repeatedly recognized after the worst terrorist attack in history; what they got was unrelenting political backstabbing and demonization. And all in the name of “patriotism.” And how DARE we question them?

Well, liberals NEW butchery of history and truth is, “Dissent WAS the highest form of patriotism.” Now it’s suddenly become the lowest form of treason.

Rather than going to the lowest low of attempting to undermine a commander-in-chief and a military in time of war – a war which they had demonstrably supported when it suited them – conservatives today are decrying the fact that we are spending ourselves into a future financial catastrophe that will dwarf anything we’ve ever seen unless we STOP.

WASHINGTONThe federal government and the Federal Reserve have committed $12.8 trillion in spending so far to bailouts and “stimulus” packages – an amount nearly equal to the value of everything produced in the U.S. in 2008.

That’s the report from Bloomberg News about efforts to reduce the economic drag of a debt-based recession – the worst financial crisis to hit the U.S. since the Great Depression.

The numbers are growing so fast, it’s tough for most Americans to grasp.

Were the Tea Parties a politically-motivated hatchet job, as liberals and their lackeys in the media kept reporting? In a word, no. The liberals making this claim offered two contradictory straw men. They claimed that 1) the Tea Parties were a Republican- and Fox News-organized event even as 2) they refused to listen to the statements of those whom they claimed were behind the event.

As an example, when demonstrators confronted CNN’s Susan Roesgen for her biased reporting and presentation of the Chicago Tea Party event as an attempt to attack Barack Obama, a woman pointed just a couple of feet away and asked, “Did you look at his sign?”

republicans-suck-too1

You can see the woman’s finger pointing at the sign (at 4:02 into the video), and the head in the bottom right of the frame is Susan Roesgen’s. And even when she was FORCED to look at the sign, Roesgen didn’t acknowledge it; it simply didn’t conform to the liberal narrative, and therefore had to be ignored.

Another video from the Greenville Tea Party shows Tea Party protestors roundly booing Republican Congressman Gresham Barrett, who had voted for the first stimulus under George Bush. A comment left on the video by “Liberty4Ever” summed it up:

I guess Barrett didn’t get the message that the TEA Parties are non-partisan events, and weasels who vote for wasteful Big Government “stimulus” and socialist bailouts. He probably knows not to speak at another of these events. There will probably be tar and feathers waiting for him!

So the unrelenting portrayal by the liberal media machine that these were “rightwing” or “conservative” or “Republican” or “Fox News” events is simply propaganda and demagoguery out to marginalize a massive outpouring of popular – and bipartisan – sentiment.

And they weren’t merely mischaracterizing the Tea Parties and disingenuously creating a straw man in an attempt to marginalize them. They were downright hateful and evil.

Failed AirAmerica radio host Janeane Garofalo was allowed to appear on MSNBC‘s Countdown and say:

This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don’t know, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?

It would have been bad enough if Garofalo were just some blogger spewing her hate; but she is high-profile member of the liberal establishment in good standing appearing on a major news program to offer her commentary. And just what could she have said about the Tea Party participants that could have been any more hateful?

Keith Olbermann was merely one among many “journalists” who repeatedly characterized the Tea Party participants with the crudest sexual innuendo and insults. He said, “Well, the teabagging is all over, except for the cleanup. And that will be my last intentional double entendre on this one at least until the end of this segment.” But then – vicious liar that he is – Olbermann couldn’t help himself, and said, “Congratulations, Pensacola teabaggers. You got spunked. And despite the hatred on display, a few of you actually violated the penal code. But teabagging is now petered out, taint what it used to be.”

After all the crude, vicious, and hateful sexual innuendo, Olbermann actually had the gall to say of the Tea Party protesters, “And then there were the protest messages, seething with hate.

“Seething with hate” means no riots. “Seething with hate” means no violence. “Seething with hate” means one or two demonstrators got tickets for jaywalking. Gregg Gutfeld had a humorous piece featuring hateful video from LEFTIST protesters, and said, “Oh, sorry. Wrong tape.” He pointed out:

Yep, those look like real extremists. Actually, they look like people who own riding mowers.

Fact is, I could find only one arrest among the hundreds of demonstrations that took place across the country. Sure, I didn’t look too hard — but still: Why is that not the story of the day?

I mean, not one person threw a chair through a store window. But that’s probably because that person owns the chair or the store or it could be a chair store.

I’ll tell you why the nonviolence wasn’t the story of the day: because it doesn’t conform to the liberal narrative. “Seething with hate” works better for them. Whether it’s true or not frankly doesn’t matter in this “brave new journalism.”

The hatred, anger, fear, and paranoia on the left is obvious: How DARE these people exercise their right to free speech and peaceful assembly to protest the bloated government socialism that we liberals love so much. Why aren’t our SS troops not doing something to STOP them!?!? You have to wonder how their heads don’t explode from trying to contain all the contradictions: On the one hand they trivialize the Tea Parties as being no big deal, while on the other hand they use the most over-the-top and hateful language imaginable to describe them; on the one hand they call conservatives the haters, while on the other hand they can’t help but reveal that it is THEY who are the real haters.

The only people truly “seething with hate” are liberals like Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo. There’s your hate. And all offered from the perspective of “tolerant” liberals loathing the “intolerance” of conservatives.

And, of course, liberals like Perez Hilton. Let’s watch the videos of Hilton and Miss California and decide who is tolerant, and who is a vicious hater.

Poor girl. She might as well have been a Jew with Adolf Hitler or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the panel.

Miss California presented herself well, and gave voice to a position on gay marriage that was proven to be the one held by the majority of voters in her state. But the left could care less about the will of the people or tolerance or anything but their agenda; which is why they embarked on a hateful campaign to punish the people who didn’t agree with them in the aftermath of the Prop 8 vote.

“Tolerance” for a liberal means crushing, punishing, or intimidating all opposition by any means available. When every voice but their own are silenced, there is “tolerance.”

Let’s just be clear on which side is truly “seething with hate.”

If you really want to find out what “seething with hate” really looks like, why not reflect on the words of Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual guide for 23 years?

Update April 22:

It occurred to me to wonder how – for all of her racist invective against conservatives – Janeane Garofalo felt about conservative blacks.  It didn’t take long to find out:

Youtube link (accessed here).

Garofalo attacks Michael Steele as a black man for being a conservative.  It is a racist attack if there ever was one.  Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican National Committee – a powerful and prestigious position – but as far as Garofalo is concerned, she needs to put that negro in his place.  And as this psychotic gargoyle is spewing this poison, who’s sitting with her but Keith Olbermann?

If Condoleezza Rice were president, does anyone seriously think this unhinged witch would have supported her?  And precisly how does Janeane Garofalo feel toward our only black Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas?  Oh, yeah, that’s right: he’s a stupid negro with Stockholm Syndrome, kissing the feet of his massahs.

How dare this racist bigot call me or anyone else a “racist”?

And let me also say a little more about Carrie Prejean, Miss California and the hate that she encountered.

On yesterday’s “Bill O’Reilly” program, Wayne Besen, a founder of a gay rights group and author of a book entitled, “Anything but Straight,” was on the program, and said of Miss California, Carrie Prejean:

WAYNE BESEN, FOUNDER OF GAY RIGHTS GROUP, TRUTH WINS OUT: I think it is fair. When she made those comments, she entered the political arena. And she’s entitled to make those comments. and I applaud her for having the courage to do so. However, when you do that, people are going to be offended. She said no offense, I was offended. Millions of other people were offended.

No!  NOT, you bigot!

Gay activist Perez Hilton asked the following question, which as a contestant Miss California had absolutely no choice but to answer:

Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

And Carrie Prejean’s answer was as tolerant as one could ever hope for:

Prejean: “Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

States have a right to choose, and Prejean is grateful for that.  But since she was asked, “Do you think every state should follow suit?  Why or why not?”  Prejean answered the QUESTION.

And homosexual activists such as Perez Hilton and Wayne Besen, who are Big Brother Stalinists, then proceed to punish and attack her for giving her thoughts on a question that they themselves had demanded she answer, and then attack her for having “entered the political arena” when the only thing she had entered was a beauty pageant.  THEY WERE THE ONES WHO DRAGGED THE POLITICAL ARENA INTO THE EVENT, AND THEN ATTACKED HER MERELY FOR EXPRESSING HER PERSONAL VIEW.

Perez Hilton went all over the internet spewing the message:

PEREZ HILTON, MISS USA JUDGE: Let me explain to you, she lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she is a dumb bitch, okay?

These people would punish the majority of Americans (and the majority of the Californians Miss California was representing) merely for having a viewpoint even as they try to use the courts to impose their lifestyle by the judicial fiat of black robed masters.

These people are the haters.  And we need to expose them for what they truly are.