A ‘Threat Against Clinton’? Seriously??? The Neverending Bias and Hypocrisy Of The Media

If Donald Trump were to say “Good morning,” the media would ignite a giant scandal, suggesting he said those words on a cloudy day – and worse yet said it with a hateful tone – and even worse still, clearly was implying that only white males deserved to actually have a good morning.

So it shouldn’t be any surprise that Donald Trump is in the hot seat again.  He will continue to be in that hot seat for another 3 months.  Because virtually every single “journalist” in America is a love child of Joseph Goebbels.

NBC covers the latest story this way:

Trump ‘Second Amendment’ Comment Seen as Veiled Threat Against Clinton
by Andrew Rafferty

Donald Trump’s comments Tuesday suggesting that “2nd Amendment people” could stop Hillary Clinton from making judicial nominations sparked outrage from opponents — but the campaign defended the remarks by arguing that Trump was referring to the group’s considerable political power.

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment,” Trump said during a rally in North Carolina on Tuesday.

“By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

The Clinton campaign and other Trump opponents rejected Trump campaign’s explanation and blamed the GOP nominee for suggesting violence as a possible means of preventing Clinton from appointing judges if she is elected president.

“This is simple — what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement.

And Sen. Chris Murphy, D-CT, responded on Twitter: “Don’t treat this as a political misstep. It’s an assassination threat, seriously upping the possibility of a national tragedy & crisis.”

And Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., took to social media to say: “@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he’s a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.”

She added, “Your reckless comments sound like a two-bit dictator.”

One of the strongest voices condemning Trump was that of Gabby Giffords, who as a congresswoman from Arizona was shot in the head during a public event in January 2011.

“Donald Trump might astound Americans on a routine basis, but we must draw a bright red line between political speech and suggestions of violence,” Giffords said in a joint statement with her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly. “What political leaders say matters to their followers.”

But Trump’s campaign denied that he was suggesting violence, instead saying the real estate mogul was referencing the power gun rights advocates have at the voting booth.

“It’s called the power of unification — 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power,” Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement. “And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.”

And Trump running mate, Mike Pence, told reporters Tuesday afternoon that Trump “is clearly saying is that people who cherish that right, who believe that firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens makes our communities more safe, not less safe, should be involved in the political process and let their voice be heard.”

Asked whether Trump was suggesting violence, Pence said, “of course not, no. Donald Trump is urging people around this country to act in a manner consistent with their convictions in the course of this election, and people who cherish the Second Amendment have a very clear choice in this election.”

Clinton obviously has Secret Service protection, and Cathy Milhoan, director of communication for the agency said they were “aware of the comments” but had no further statement.

It’s not the first time suggestions of violence have become part of the campaign. Last month, the Secret Service said it was investigating New Hampshire State Sen. Al Baldasaro, who serves as an adviser for Trump’s campaign on veteran’s issues, after he called for Clinton to be executed for “treason” related to her use of a private email server.

A Trump spokesperson said the candidate did not agree with those statements. Still, Baldasaro received a shout-out from the candidate at a campaign event last weekend.

Ooh, it’s so, so terrible.  Donald Trump is trying to arrange for Hillary’s assassination.  And neither Hillary nor any of her supporters have said one single thing suggesting a dark and terrible and terrifying future if Donald Trump were to be elected president, such that a crazed Democrat – Democrats and Democrat race-identifying groups being responsible for more than ninety percent of all violent crime in America – might actually assassinate Donald Trump.

As an example, consider what Hillary Clinton supporter Will Smith just suggested:

Actor Will Smith thinks Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy is a good thing for America — because now the country can “cleanse” itself of the Republican nominee and his supporters.

At a press event in Dubai to promote his latest film Suicide Squad, the 47-year-old actor said he believes it is important to “speak out about the insanity” of the 2016 presidential race.

“As painful as it is to hear Donald Trump talk and as embarrassing as it is as an American to hear him talk, I think it’s good,” Smith said, according to the Associated Press. “We get to know who people are and now we get to cleanse it out of our country.”

But so what?  That’s different.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IN HISTORY THAT WORD “CLEANSE” HAS BEEN USED IN ANY SIMILAR CONTEXT, IT WAS A EUPHEMISM FOR THE EXTERMINATION OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR EITHER POLITICAL OR RACIST REASONS.  EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Hitler used it that way; Stalin used it that way; Chairman Mao used it that way; Pol Pot used it that way.  And one more than one hundred million human beings are DEAD because of words just like the words that Hillary supporter Will Smith just used.

And of course, you’ve just got to hand it to Hollywood liberals who make millions of dollars marketing themselves as gun-toting heroes and then campaigning to make everybody else poor as they disarm them.

How many Democrats will never again go to see a Will Smith movie because the man just morally disqualified himself from ever receiving so much as one penny from any American ever again?  Not ONE.

More important, how many mainstream media “journalists” will tie Will Smith directly to Hillary Clinton and associate his incredibly vile remarks to her???  Not ONE.

Another act of savage hypocrisy comes out in this story:

Imagine if Trump were ahead in the polls and one of his leading elected senatorial spokespeople mocked Hillary Clinton, personally attacking her for cowardice and then ending with by mocking that Hillary “can’t handle the fact that she’s losing to a man.”

It is a terrible, unforgivable thing to be a misogynist; but there aint nothing wrong in our culture with a woman openly being a misandrist (a hater of men).  And so the same media that rabidly froths at the mouth every single time Donald Trump or one of his supporters says something that smacks of male chauvinism merely yawns every single time Hillary Clinton or one of her supporters says something anti-male.

But the fact that if you are a journalist, you are a two-faced dishonest hypocrite guarantees that double-standards don’t need to be mentioned.

So Obama CIA-Director Michael Hayden continues with the demonstration of how “facts” work when he said this of Donald Trump:

The former head of the CIA, retired Gen. Michael Hayden, told CNN’s Jake Tapper: “If someone else had said that said outside the hall, he’d be in the back of a police wagon now with the Secret Service questioning him.”

US Secret Service communications director Cathy Milhoan told CNN the agency “is aware of Mr. Trump’s comments.”

Hayden added: “You’re not just responsible for what you say. You are responsible for what people hear.”

Let’s just categorically first state for the record that if “someone else had illegally installed an unauthorized and unsecured secret personal server in a bathroom closet and placed thousands of top secret emails on it so our worst enemies could easily hack the system and steal our most vital secrets, she’d be in GITMO getting WATERBOARDED.

But I guess we’re going to apply a different standard now.

Just as Hayden says, “You’re not just responsible for what you say.  You are responsible for what people hear.”

You know, unless you’re Hillary Clinton, in which case you get to brazenly violate our national security laws and then get away with it on the grounds that you had no idea you were actually doing what you were in fact caught doing.

Here’s a final one: in another so-far-over-the-top-remark it is beyond UNREAL, Hayden called Trump “a clear and present danger”:

MICHAEL HAYDEN: Look, we gotta call balls and strikes the way we see them, alright? We all felt strongly enough about what we believe to be a clear and present danger, that we felt compelled to say what we said…

JAKE TAPPER: You just called Donald Trump a clear and present danger.

You look at the parlance of what that phrase means: If somebody is declared “a clear and present danger,” it literally becomes the duty of every soldier to eliminate that threat by any means necessary.  So in other words, Michael Hayden just called for the assassination of Donald Trump.

But as blatant as all this crap is, we still don’t get to the REAL hypocrisy until we get to Barack Obama’s words:

Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’
By WSJ Staff
Jun 14, 2008 1:29 pm ET

[Editor’s note: This blog post was published in 2008. In the wake of Saturday’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz., a number of lawmakers and others have called for toning down the political rhetoric and President Barack Obama led a moment of silence this morning for the victims. Click here and here for more. Also, check back with Washington Wire for updates.]

Amy Chozick reports on the presidential race from Philadelphia.

Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

For what it’s worth, that “Saturday’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona” was the very one that ended with Gabby Giffords – who is now all of a sudden “one of the strongest voices condemning Trump” – being shot.

She has never ONCE called out the wicked Barack Hussein Obama for his terrorist threat to use GUNS against Republicans.

Obama also infamously told Latinos on a racist basis “to punish your enemies.”

And to put those words into perspective, Donald Trump didn’t threaten with “guns” the way Obama did; he threatened with the “2nd Amendment.”  Which apparently is even more dangerous than guns.

If Donald Trump meant his threat, than Barack Obama meant his more direct threat.

The fact that Barack Obama said something he shouldn’t have said and got elected means that we have to elect Donald Trump for saying something he shouldn’t have said, just to be fair.

Hey, let’s go back to Hillary Clinton, 2008, explaining why she should remain in the race:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?” Clinton said. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.”

Oh, oh.  Hillary Clinton suggested to her followers that it wasn’t too late yet to assassinate her political rival.

The media jumped all over her for that and Hillary was forced to apologize for her “assassination remark.”  But that was ONLY because the mainstream media was totally in the tank for Obama and treated Hillary like a Republican.

Just as now they’re all totally in the tank for Hillary and are treating Trump like an alien species of Nazi cockroach.

But did Trump use the word “gun” the way Obama did?  Nope.  Did Trump use the word “assassinated” the way Hillary Clinton did?  Nope.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the media actually gave you that history when they breathlessly reported on this story of Donald Trump going beyond the pale that only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have ever gone beyond before?  Wouldn’t facts in context change the meaning of the story???  Which is why they’re not doing it.

If the media wanted to lambast Trump in a fair way, they could title their story thus: “Trump joins Hillary Clinton in suggesting the assassination of a political rival.”  But it appears that they don’t remember what Hillary did.  And they don’t want anyone else too, either.

The entire project of the mainstream media right now is to make Donald Trump absolutely unelectable by depicting him as an unhinged man.  If the American people understood that Barack Obama threatened to kill his opponents “the Chicago Way” and Hillary Clinton threatened to have her opponent assassinated, you’d have a very different view of Donald Trump’s supposedly “beyond the pale” remark.

Hillary Clinton just came out and said this regarding the “2nd Amendment” as “threat” remark:

“Words matter, my friends.”

You mean, except for every single word in every single one of the 33,000 emails you destroyed so the American people couldn’t see how much YOUR words would have mattered given that they would have put you in prison for the remainder of your natural life???

Mainstream media “journalists” will NEVER be fair.  You can understand that the media has driven in their aiming stakes so that the field of fire will always be directed at Donald Trump.

The only thing we can hope here – given the sheer number of Americans who believe in their 2nd Amendment right to protect themselves in a world that Obama and Clinton have allowed to careen wildly out of control – is the fact that people will rightly view this as proof that Hillary Clinton (who wants to allow any victim of any incident involving a firearm to sue the gun manufacturer thereby putting gun makers out of business and thereby taking away our guns by fiat) truly DOES want to take away our 2nd Amendment and the guns that keep our families safe in our own homes.  All we can do is hope that in their biased frenzy to demonize Trump, the media goes too far and inadvertently strikes a nerve in the American psyche.

Let’s consider what the media is “forgetting” to cover while they hyperventilate over Donald Trump allegedly calling for the assassination of Hillary Clinton…

As we speak, Hillary Clinton just got caught featuring the father of the terrorist mass-murderer at a gay Orlando nightclub proudly supporting the presidential candidate who is by far and away the most pro-terrorist and the most anti-American:

Hey kids, that’s “Seddique Mateen, whose son Omar killed 49 people at Pulse nightclub on June 12, was seen grinning as he watched the Democratic presidential nominee speak from the area behind the podium usually reserved for VIPs.”

Usually reserved for VIPs and ALWAYS carefully VETTED.

For the official record, the murderous son, Omar, was ALSO a registered Democrat.

If you’re a terrorist, there is absolutely zero question whom YOU’RE voting for.

Just as if you’re a cop-assassinating criminal, there is zero question whom you’re voting for.

The Democrat Party – especially the Democrat Party that will exist if Hillary Clinton is elected president – is an utterly vile, demonic entity.

But hey, we journalists are Joseph Goebbel’s love children; let’s refuse to talk about ACTUAL TERRORISTS WHO MASS-MURDERED AMERICANS and instead talk about some crap Donald Trump said that we could savagely attack him for.

As we speak, Hillary Clinton is being busted all over the place for quid pro quo deals in which she sold out America to enrich herself at the American people’s expense.  Even the leftist Huffington Post is openly asking, “Has Hillary Clinton won the email battle only to lose the corruption war?”  Even BEFORE this latest slamming indictment proving yet ANOTHER Hillary Clinton act of corruption came out, HuffPo was saying:

You HAVE to click on that to read it: “The evidence showing clear-cut, stupid proof, quid-pro quo between Bill and Hillary Clinton donors and candidate Hillary Clinton is getting too obvious to ignore.”

Unless you are a mainstream media “journalist” love-child of Joseph Goebbels, that is.  Then you can easily ignore it by alleging that whatever quip Donald Trump said today rises to a level that forces us to give ZERO air-time to the documented treasonous criminal that Hillary Clinton is.

We are finding what are textbook examples of “quid-pro quo,” in which access, influence and favors were bought and sold.  In one stunning example, Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide – in spite of her now-provably false testimony that Hillary Clinton burned her schedules for security – is caught having an email exchange in which she’s asked for Hillary’s schedule (you know, so people who paid to play can “just happen” to show up where Hillary is) emails back basically saying, “I just happened to leave it on my bed in my hotel room and the door just happens to be unlocked and I just happen not to be there to physically see if you’re looking at it.”

Aside from the obvious sale of that schedule, who ELSE could have seen that schedule?  hen you see this blatantly cavalier attitude toward security when it comes to Hillary Clinton enriching herself, how is it NOT a surprise that the Russians and probably all our other enemies hacked Hillary’s unsecured server that was installed totally for Hillary’s a) convenience and b) ability to break the law and purge the evidence???

Why was Huma Abedin on both payrolls for the Clinton Foundation AND the State Department???  How is that not the very embodiment of “conflict of interest”???  Why did Hillary Clinton personally sign off on such an obvious blatantly dishonest and corrupt double-dip???  Despite signing a pledge that she would never ever EVER conflate State Department business with Clinton Foundation business????

Why did Bill Clinton’s value as a speaker-for-hire suddenly skyrocket so massively after Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State when every other president’s value rapidly declines after leaving office???  Nine years after leaving office, why does Bill Clinton’s value as a speaker suddenly soar from $100,000 a speech to $500,000 a speech???  Other than paying to play for Hillary’s influence as Secretary of State???  Why did the Hillary Clinton State Department approve of so many obvious conflicts of interests involving entities with business or policy interests with the U.S. State Department???

It is WRONG to say that none of this indicts Hillary; ALL of it indicts her.  She signed off on ALL of it.  She is literally the one who set up the entire criminal enterprise.

Donors pushed the Clinton State Department for access, favors, even JOBS.  And of course “jobs” as “favors.”  Pay-to-play.  Quid-pro quo.

Here is just one of MANY textbook dictionary definitions of quid-pro quo “pay-to-play”.

And by the way, NONE of these emails were in those that Hillary turned over to the State Department despite her swearing under oath that she turned over ALL emails involving the State Department to the State Department.

The fact that these emails even exist in and of themselves proves that Hillary Clinton is a criminal.

Most conservatives, myself included, have been pointing out all along that Hillary Clinton did not have a secret unauthorized private server installed to post national security secrets for our enemies to hack and view; rather, she did it as a criminal conspiracy to prevent the transparency that the law requires of our public servants and maintain the ability to destroy evidence – which she did to the tune of some 33,000 purged emails.  The legal theory of the spoliation of evidence inference holds that when a party destroys evidence, it is justifiable to infer that the party had “consciousness of guilt” or other motivation to avoid the evidence.  The destruction of evidence is itself evidence.

In any legitimate system of justice, a court would find Hillary Clinton guilty and respond to her protests by saying, “Well, then, it’s just too damn bad you destroyed all the evidence of your innocence, isn’t it”?

We all understand what Habitat for Humanity does.  What does the Clinton Foundation do?  It was ALWAYS murky.  And now we know with crystal clarity: the Clinton Foundation was a conduit for influencing federal officials at the State Department for the purpose of rewarding Clinton donors with jobs, with favors, with influence on a quid-pro quo basis.

Will the media report the facts?  Will the mainstream media create the drumbeat of saying to Obama and Hillary and all the tools who speak in their stead, “YOU DID WRONG!!!  AND WE ARE GOING TO HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE!!!”

NO.  Don’t hold your breath.

Instead, it’s like Trump says “It’s my duty to…” and the entire mainstream media is like, “Trump said ‘doody’!!!”

Realize whether we’re talking about ANY of the ENTIRE Hillary Clinton email scandal, the mainstream media has been WORTHLESS in reporting.  Do you know who forced this story open?  Judicial Watch and the Republican House.  Because the mainstream media that will crawl up Donald Trump’s rectum with a magnifying glass WILL NOT DO ITS JOB OR BE FAIR OR HONEST IN ITS COVERAGE.

No entity on earth is more evil than a biased media that distorts the facts and shapes their narratives.

You might see such a statement and think, “Wait a minute!  ISIS is worse than the mainstream media!”  And my contention is no it isn’t; because if the mainstream media had just done it’s damn JOB rather than spend the last eight years whitewashing for Barack Obama, Obama would NEVER have been allowed to get away with doing NOTHING while that terrorist army exploded into existence and created a caliphate.  The only way an Islamic State can get away with such disgusting and vicious evil is when a dishonest media refuses to report the truth and allows people to believe lies.  Just as the only reason Hillary Clinton is free to run for president rather than already having been convicted and serving a long sentence in PRISON is because the same corrupt, dishonest media will not hold Barack Obama responsible the way they would have had a Republican president tried to exonerate an obviously guilty successor.  Had the Democrats not been allowed to nominate such a terrible and yes, CRIMINAL candidate, the Republicans would not have angrily responded by nominating Donald Trump.  If history proves anything, it is that if you distort or warp history, you allow the most evil things to happen as lies triumph.  The media again and again has allowed the worst outcomes to become reality by playing political games with reality.  People cannot even POSSIBLY do the right thing if they don’t know the truth; and the mainstream media exists today to prevent people from knowing the truth.  And it is for that reason that I believe that journalists will one day scream as they burn in a lower level of hell than the Nazis.

 

 

‘Together We Thrive’ Slogan Used In Tucson ‘Memorial’ Came From Organizing For America

Obama gave a very good speech last night.  But when he said:

“But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together…”

I would have believed it to be far more sincere had Obama mentioned his own spiteful and polarizing rhetoric –

Didn’t Obama spend more than 20 years with a church that by any reasonable standard would be readily identified as a racist hate organization?  You remember: that whole sordid “God Damn America” thing?

Didn’t Obama say of rural white Pennsylvanians, “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”?

Didn’t Obama command, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?

Didn’t Obama command, “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”?

Didn’t Obama say, “I don’t want to quell anger.  I think people are right to be angry.  I’m angry!”

Didn’t Obama tell his followers to “punish our enemies”?  With said “enemies” being Republicans?

And there are so many others.  Even ones that most people would find minor, such as the campaign slogan, “Fired up, ready to go!”, should sound sinister given the attack that Sarah Palin’s “Don’t retreat, reload” has received.

– and disavowed many of his own words as contributing to the hostile climate that we have seen spring up in his presidency.

Obama ran as the man who would transcend the political divide by rising above partisan and polarizing politics as usual.  That was his core promise to the American people.

But in reality – as affirmed by the American people – he has been the most polarizing president in American history.

It’s always do as I say, not as I do with Obama.

We’re not supposed to make a great tragedy political???

Tell it to Obama:

“Together We Thrive” was the slogan (and just when in the hell did Memorial services start getting “slogans”?)  of the Tucson memorial service.  You know, the one where the crowd cheered as though they were at a political rally, rather than at an event to mourn and honor people who were just ruthlessly gunned down by a psychopath.

Here are the T-shirts printed with the political slogan (yes, we can factually say that this is was very much a political slogan, having been the slogan of Obama and his “Organizing for America” organization):

And just when the hell was the last time you attended a memorial service for people who were gunned down and murdered or maimed, and received a T-shirt with bearing a political slogan???

The mainstream media continued to make it all about Obama, with the headline, “Obama Could Get Political Boost From Tucson Speech.”  They say:

President Barack Obama’s consoling, sermon-like speech at a service for the victims of the Arizona shooting rampage steered clear of politics, yet it may have given him one of the biggest political boosts since he took office two years ago.

“Steered clear of politics”???  The partisan crowd cheering at the “memorial service” were literally wearing their politics like T-shirts!!!

I mean, my God.  I’m just disappointed now that I didn’t get my Bush 9/11 victims memorial speech commemorative T-shirt, featuring a George W. Bush for president election slogan.

Meanwhile liberals are congratulating themselves at their marvelous “tolerance” expressed in Obama’s speech, even as they continue to pile on in their hate for conservatives like Sarah Palin.

And here’s the fruits of Obama’s ostensible call for tolerance and understanding:

Death threats to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin have increased to unprecedented levels in the wake of Saturday’s shooting in Tucson, an aide tells ABC News.

Following the attack that seriously wounded Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others, Palin has found herself embroiled in a firestorm of controversy. Numerous left-wing commentators have accused Palin’s hard-hitting partisan rhetoric of influencing accused shooter Jared Lee Loughner.

The Daily Caller reported that dozens of Twitter users called for Sarah Palin’s death in the hours following the shooting, with some going so far as to wish for her assassination.

Major mainstream media figures continued to demonize Sarah Palin even after Obama’s speech.  Keith Olbermann attacked her for speaking out in her video one day after attacking her for not speaking out.  Bill Press said that Sarah Palin’s self-defense against the vicious leftwing attacks against her reminded him of a terrorist hostage video.

Sarah Palin’s worst “crime” was coming out with a map that “targeted” vulnerable districts for Republican election victories, including Gabrielle Giffords’ seat.  It is conveniently overlooked that the DEMOCRAT PARTY has used similar maps.  It is conveniently forgotten that powerful leftwing site Daily Kos targeted the moderate Gabrielle Giffords.  It is conveniently forgotten that Daily Kos featured an article literally saying of Gabrielle Giffords, “she’s dead to me.”

Funny.  I don’t recall Sarah Palin saying that Gabrielle Giffords was dead to her.  All she did was use a map the same way Democrats have been doing basically since Lewis and Clark rowed around America in their canoes.

All I can say is I watched the Tucson memorial service.  I thought the Native American blessing thing was bizarre (were any of the shooting victims Native American?).  I thought the University of Arizona president thought the event was to celebrate his university.  And I thought the cheering at what was supposed to be a memorial service was just flat-out wrong.

But even the cheering dims in sheer brazenness to the “Together We Thrive – Organizing for America” political sloganeering.

It very much seems to be ALL about politics to the left.  Because they don’t seem to believe in anything else but raw political power.  And that goes from the lowest leftwing blogger furiously writing in his parents’ basement all the way up to the president of the United States.

Truth Among Murder Victims As Left Tries To Make Jared Loughner A Republican

Pilate therefore said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”  Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” – John 18:37-38

Well, one thing’s for sure: the truth sure isn’t what the Democrat rhetoric is spouting in the aftermath of the Tucson, AZ shooting that resulted in the wounding of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords among 19 shooting victims, with six killed.

I was amazed to see the thousands of hits an old article I wrote had recently generated.  The reason?  Democrats who had demonized Sarah Palin for her “targeting strategy” – which Democrats themselves routinely do – are now demonizing her again because one of the vulnerable districts Palin identified well over a year ago was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ District 8.

As Democrats galore shrilly and viciously attack Sarah Palin for her “targeting,” what is conveniently ignored is that liberals not only targeted Gabrielle Giffords for defeat, but literally said “she’s dead.”

But “what is truth?” for these people?  An inconvenient obstacle to be overcome, at most.

I was also amazed that the White House literally used Fox News to pass off clear and demonstrable lies associating a conservative organization with Jared Loughner.

Incredibly, the Pima Country sheriff – elected as a Democrat – without a single shred of supporting evidence, has repeatedly denounced conservatives as being somehow to blame for the shootings in blatantly partisan and irresponsible manner.

“What is truth?”  Don’t ask Democrat Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

And then there are the “Jared Loughner Facebook accounts” which “have all right wing books, websites, and people that he points to.”  Just more false flag operations by Democrats to falsely associate conservatives with the psycho assassin.

This crap just never ends. It doesn’t matter to these lying propagandists one iota that if anything, Jared Loughner was a liberal, rather than any kind of conservative.

Here’s yet another depraved Democrat attempt to deceive:

Loughner “Republican” Voter Registration faked. Three points that demonstrate that.
Posted on 01/10/2011 6:14:13 AM PST by Lazamataz

This document is circulating, purportedly showing Jared Loughner is a registered Republican.

There are two reasons why the document is faked, and one official proclamation that undermines it:

• TUCSON is spelled TUSCON. People who live in a city do not mispell it’s name.

• If you go to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission website and put in the address listed on this “registration” it comes up in Senator District 26. This fraud voter reg says District 27. (Hat tip, Brytani)

• Chris Roads, Pima County Registrar of Voters, declares that Jared Loughner is registered as an independent. First registered in 2006. http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_78272a23-fe75-5bee-ba38-f8171cda3fb7.html

A blatantly partisan ideologue Newsweek “journalist” isn’t one bit disappointed in the sea of lies that characterize the Democrat response to this tragedy.  Far from it:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

This little Joseph Goebbels minion basically wants Barack Obama to deliver a “State of the Reich” Address and demagogue this tragic shooting into a demand to round up all the conservatives and put them in camps.

The strategy that the little Newsweek rodent recommends has been successfully tried in the past – by one Adolf Hitler.  Let us hope that the “new bipartisan Obama” (although there is this caveat) is now getting his advice from more humans and fewer rodents.

Democrats and their media lackeys are decrying the “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric which caused this shooting en masse.  And, of course, they mean “conservative” and “Republican” “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric.

But why would anyone think that?  Apart from the fact that they are ideologues and propagandists, I mean?  There’s no evidence whatsoever that Jared Loughner EVER listened to “right wing talk radio,” or supported Sarah Palin, or was a member of the tea party, or even cared about charged political issues such as health care.  The evidence is, rather, that he was severely mentally sick and living in his own twisted world.

They make the prima facia claim (with little or no supporting argument) that the angry partisan political climate can set off the mentally unbalanced.  Which is itself a mentally unbalanced claim to make.

A few things, there.  First, if this is so, and they really believe that, then how do they justify the eight incredibly angry years of “Bush derangement syndrome”?  Why was it not true when Republicans were in power, but not true now that Democrats are in power?  The mainstream media is far too pathologically biased and dishonest to show you that the WORST “climate of hate” comes from the left.

Second, why do Democrats, if they really believe their own crap, continue to make such bitter and polarizing comments if such comments can push the already unhinged over the edge?  Take our liberal propagandist “sheriff, for instance:

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country, is getting to be outrageous,” Dupnik said Sunday.

It’s clear who the sheriff has in mind. As he told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country. … We as a country need to look into our souls and into our hearts and say is what we’re doing really in the best interest of this country, or is there something better we can do.”

Got that? The shooting was motivated by the rhetoric of “one party” — the Republicans — trying to stop the Democrats from making this “a better country.” Talk about “hate speech.”

Let me ask you, just for the sake of argument.  Suppose that there is some crazed liberal out there in the wings.  And said crazed liberal hears his law enforcement say, “We see [the Republican] Party trying to block the attempts of [the Democrat] Party to make this a better country.”  And, of course, he’s aghast.  What can be done to stop this evil Republican Party from keeping the Democrats from finally making this “a better country”???

Something must be done.  Someone must act.  By any means necessary.  Including – maybe even embracing – violence.

How does this not follow on their own rhetoric???

Didn’t Obama command, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?

The president beamed his command into my brain to bring a gun to the Republican congressman’s meet-and-greet.

Didn’t Obama command, “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”?

“Yes!  YES!  Get in their face.  With a gun!  And then pull the trigger!”

Didn’t Obama tell his followers to “punish our enemies”?  With said “enemies” being Republicans?

“My client says he had to punish those Republican congressmen.  He says the president commanded him to kill those congressmen.”

Now, to set the record straight, having pointed out just a few of Obama’s comments, I don’t think Obama was calling for violence.  Because, apparently unlike Democrats, I possess the moral intelligence to understand that he was using the same sort of common metaphors as Sarah Palin has when she has said, “Don’t retreat, reload.”  And, on the flip side, I realize that if Sarah Palin is a disgrace, then the president of the United States is far more so, given the very office from which he has said these things.

A reasonable person can’t help but be confused at the constant double-standard that comes from Democrats.  If this kind of rhetoric is wrong, if it leads to violence, then why do they keep doing it themselves???  And why do they denounce Republicans even while they themselves are doing the very thing they say is evil to do???  And how do their skulls not explode from containing all the contradictions???

Let me offer something that happened to me a couple of years ago to show how political rhetoric – whether “angry” or “hateful” or not – has little if anything to do with setting off an unhinged mind.

A very sweet lady in my church asked several of her friends to help her with a big garage sale she wanted to have.  Being a sweet lady, she asked the police if it was okay to put out signs around town notifying drivers of her yard sale.  Which most people just do.  And, being a sweet lady, when the police told her people weren’t supposed to put out such signage, she didn’t do it.  Which meant that her yard sale – with all the effort that went into it – was twisting in the wind.

So I made a nice, big sign that said “Yard Sale” along with the address, drove to the main drag in town, and waved that darned thing around to first the northbound traffic, then the southbound traffic, and so on and so forth.  And when I came back a couple hours later, I was assured that my incredibly soul-numbing boredom had not been in vain: a lot of people suddenly started showing up.

I love sweet little old ladies.  And don’t you dare mess with one while I’m anywhere nearby, if you like your teeth.

Well, all that was to bring up something that happened while I was holding that sign that merely said “YARD SALE” with a house address.  A woman walking on the sidewalk came up to me, took a look at the sign, and screamed, “Yard Sale!  YARD SALE!”  And just went off on me in an uncontrollable rant for two or three minutes.

I never said a single word to her.  There was no point.  She was clearly not in her right mind, and there’s no point trying to argue with or reason with deranged people.

And the point is, anything can set these people off.  Absolutely anything.  Even the words “Yard Sale” on a cardboard sign, accompanied by the probably wide-eyes of a helpless man staring into the bulging eyeballs of the insane.

It’s not a matter of “avoid the anger.”  Avoid everything.  Shut down the economy.  Close the stores.  Stay in your homes.  Shut off all the television and radio stations.  Make tinfoil hats.  Because even your very thoughtwaves can set these people off.

So this notion that Republicans and conservatives must “tone down the hate” – while of course Democrats may continue to feel free to unleash hell – is so paranoid and so unhinged that I can’t help but watch these Democrats and these reporters and see the face of that whacked-out woman going off on me about my yard sale sign.

Sheriff Dupnik saying that what people hear on the radio and on television makes them do the things they do could well come right out of the brain of Jared Loughner, who merely replaces “radio and television” with “government.”  It’s equally insane.

I can easily picture the “sheriff,” and liberals like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow cringing in lead-lined bunkers hoping that their tinfoil hats are thick enough to prevent Sarah Palin – who already lives rent-free in their heads – from taking over that final molecule and forcing them to do her evil bidding.

That’s basically the message of the left right now: “Put on your tinfoil hats, people!  Because your all in danger of having your minds commandeered by rightwing hate!”

And, at risk of boring you, that was precisely what Jared Loughner’s disturbed and paranoid brain feared: mind control.

This Jared Loughner guy wasn’t livid over ObamaCare or the stimulus or anything based in reality; he was frothing at the mouth over the government being behind the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, he was furious over the government taking over our brains by controlling grammar, he was enthralled with his bizarre dreams, that sort of thing.  He was as disconnected from politics as he was from the rest of reality.  Loughner once confronted Rep. Giffords with a question that made no sense.  And when she basically ignored it, his warped mind apparently fixated on her.

To make the Democrats’ despicable argument all the more so, based on their view, you could reasonably blame Gabrielle Giffords for the shooting.  Jared Loughner was listening to her, and she clearly didn’t say the right thing – which incited him to violence.

Every single journalist and every single politician who demands that people – and particularly conservative people – tone down their political views should be immediately discredited as nothing more than despicable ideological hacks.

What we are seeing is the murder of seven victims.  Not just six.  The seventh is truth, which is now being contorted and ripped beyond the breaking point for the sake of partisan political ideology.

And I’ll end by saying this: the record of history could not be more clear: the worse monsters in political history have without fail been those who have demanded that their opponents be silent.  The last thing we should ever want to follow is the political rationale that says, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

When It Comes To Charges Of Racism And Violence, Democrats Need To Do A Lot More Shutting The Hell Up

We’ve got Democrat extraordinaire Harry Reid on the record saying:

“I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?”

And the fact that Reid still has his job is proof that this is an acceptable Democrat position.  The official Democrat position is now revealed: Hispanics – and surely blacks as well – are basically merely group-thinking herd animals who dumbly recognize that Democrats promise them free hay for life.  A cow is a cow, and not smart enough to be much more.  A cow must also now be a Democrat, and for the same reason.

Harry Reid’s statement of Democrat racial totalitarianism as applied to Hispanics is clearly even MORE true of blacks, who are statistically even more likely to be Democrats than Hispanics.  Ergo sum, racist mass murderer Omar Thornton is a Democrat by virtue of the fact that no one of African-American heritage could reasonably be anything else.  Just as was the gang of young black thugs who started a “beat whitey night” at the Iowa State Fairground.

Omar Thornton set aside the fact that he was literally on video stealing from his company.  He said it was all about racism.  And an avalanche of Democrats agree with everything Thornton said about white business owners being racist by the simple fact that they are white business owners.  Oh, with the possible exception of going out and killing everybody who make the giant chips on their shoulders itch.  Take for example the opinions of Obama’s latest replacement for racist spiritual adviser Jeremiah Wright, Jim Wallis:

The United States of America was established as a white society, founded upon the genocide of another race and then the enslavement of yet another. […]

What has not changed is the systematic and pervasive character of racism in the United States and the condition of life for the majority of African Americans. In fact, those conditions have gotten worse.

We can look back over the last couple of years and readily see that Democrats as a matter of routine have demonized Tea Party members and maliciously and FALSELY accused them of things they haven’t said and haven’t done.  We’ve recently got the New York Slimes on the record retracting it’s false charge that Tea Party people spit on a black congressman; and now we’ve got a Democrat caught red-handed posing as a racist Rand Paul supporter (mind you, he IS a racist; he’s posing as a Rand Paul supporter).  Which continues the already-revealed despicable Democrat strategy to pose as conservatives and say and do horrible things in order to demonize them.  Democrats haven’t bothered to associate actual events with Republicans and Tea Party members in order to demonize them; they’ve just created those events themselves.

Liberal Mary Frances Berry admits that the Democrats’ attempt to label the tea party as “racist” is essentially nothing more than an incredibly vile political strategy to escape blame for Democrat incompetence:

“Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats.  There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November.  Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

The biggest Democrat charge is that conservatives are inciting violence with their violent rhetoric.  Here’s one example among many candidates:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Democratic National Committee will amplify its charge that Republicans are responsible for “inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists … to disrupt” town hall meetings in a new 65 second Web video that will release Wednesday morning.

That when all the “angriest mobs” have been bussed in union workers (definition of AstroTurf) who have created all kinds of tension and violence (see here and here and here for three of many examples).  That when pro-Democrat SEIU thugs beat a black man to the ground and then kicked him outside of a town hall.  That when a liberal literally bit off a finger of an innocent man at a protest.  That when liberals are targeting tea party members with death threats (and see also here).

And that when at least two Democrat officials tell us they wish Sarah Palin could have been in the airplane crash that killed her fellow Alaska Republican Ted Stevens.

In case you missed it, on Tuesday Keith Halloran, a Democrat candidate for the New Hampshire House, posted in a Facebook thread about the plane crash that killed former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, “Just wish Sarah and Levy [sic] were on board.”

New Hampshire State Representative Timothy Horrigan replied Wednesday, “Well a dead Palin wd [sic] be even more dangerous than a live one … she is all about her myth & if she was dead she cldn’ t [sic] commit any more gaffes.”

And even though all of the actual violence has been steadily coming from the left.

Recently, a leftist environmentalist whackjob was shot and killed while threatening to murder hostages in the Discovery TV building.  Earlier this year a leftwing loon professor murdered three people, and had killed before and been set free by Democrats.

There’s plenty of vile and violent Democrat rhetoric amping up and inciting the liberal base.  And lo and behold we’ve got black people that Democrats claim as theirs (that doesn’t sound racist, does it?) now taking it to the next level and killing white people for the crime of being white people.

Democrats demagogically attacked Sarah Palin as inciting violence when she used surveyors’ symbols to map vulnerable Democrat districts, just as Democrats attacked Michelle Bachmann as inciting violence for using the term “gangster government.” I pointed out at the time that if anyone was inciting violence, it was Barry Hussein for talking about guns and knives. What was it Obama said to incite Democrats to violence? Ah, yes:

OBAMA: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

And here we are: Omar Thornton did just what Obama told him to do and brought a gun.  And the damn thing (by which I mean Omar Thornton) went off and killed a bunch of people.

When it comes to charges of racism, or charges of inciting violence, Democrats need to do a lot less talking, and a whole lot more shutting the hell up.

AFL-CIO President With Brutal History Of Inciting Violence Attacks Sarah Palin For Inciting Violence

I have said it again and again: the quintessential defining essence of liberalism is hypocrisy.

And it’s not just in the big picture, in which ‘to be a liberal’ means ‘to be generous with other peoples’ money.’  It’s in everything they say and do, like that little bit of yeast which works its way through the whole batch of dough (Galatians 5:9).

Today we have AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka showing us what a particularly vile species of hypocrite liberal looks like:

Trumka: ‘Palinism’ an ‘ugly word’
By MATT NEGRIN | 8/26/10 10:23 AM EDT  Updated: 8/26/10 3:01 PM EDT

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka will tell Alaskans on Thursday that there’s something “just not right” with their former governor, Sarah Palin, who he says is “getting close to calling for violence” in her rhetoric.

He’ll also predict that Palin will “go down in history like McCarthy,” referring to Wisconsin Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose unsubstantiated labeling of Americans as communists and communist sympathizers during the 1950s gave the world the word “McCarthyism.”
“Palinism will become an ugly word,” Trumka will say at a convention in Anchorage, according to prepared remarks. “Who is this woman, anyway? What happened to her?”

[snip]

“In this charged political environment, her kind of talk gets dangerous. ‘Don’t retreat … reload’ may seem clever, the kind of bull you hear all the time, but put it in context. She’s using crosshairs to illustrate targeted legislators. She’s on the wrong side of the line there. She’s getting close to calling for violence. And some of her fans take that stuff seriously. We’ve got legislators in America who have been living with death threats since the health care votes,” he will say.

For the record, “Trumkaism” has been an ugly word at least since 1993.  You’ll soon know why, if you don’t already.

I’ve dealt with these utterly asinine rantings over Michelle Bachmann’s and Sarah Palin’s “calls for violence” before.  I’ve written about how Sarah Palin used surveyor symbols, NOT target symbols; and how it was actually DEMOCRATS who used “crosshair” symbols.  And how the fact that Democrats are documented liars on issue after issue never keeps them from telling the same lies over and over again.

At least she didn’t call upon her followers to bring guns and gun down their opponents, like Barack Obama did, right?

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl.  I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

And I must point out that Obama said this in the violent climate of Philadelphia, in which the murder rate is three times the national average.

Why are liberals so violent and so full of hate?  Why do they want to bring guns and murder people?  Especially when – hypocrites that they are – they routinely seek to take guns away from others?

But enough about talking about Obama and his own hypocritical demagoguery.  Let’s keep our focus on AFL-CIO President Trumka and his massive demagogic hypocrisy.

The following astonishing video posted on WorldNews.com tells the story of the union’s Bizarro-world nonviolence answer to Gandhi:

Do you mind if I call you “Dick,” Richard?  Because you surely are one in every derogatory sense of the word.

You really need to watch the video to see how vile and violent a man Trumka truly is.  But here’s the short version of the story.

On the orders of the United Mine Workers (UMW), 16,000 miners went on strike in 1993. One subcontractor, Eddie York (who was not a UMW member), decided it was important to support his wife and three children and crossed picket lines to get to his job. He was shot in the head as he left the job site to go home. UMW President Richard Trumka (now Secretary-Treasurer at the AFL-CIO) told The Washington Times that “if you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you’re going to burn your finger.” UMW strike captain Jerry Dale Lowe was found guilty of weapons charges and conspiracy in York’s death, and York’s widow Wanda sued the union for her husband’s wrongful death. The UMW fought the lawsuit for four years, but settled with Wanda York only two days after federal prosecutors announced that they would share evidence from the criminal trial with York’s attorneys.

The short version doesn’t include the fact that Richad Trumka’s union thugs – in addition to shooting a good family man in the head and murdering him – threw rocks at the rescue workers who showed up to try to save Eddie York’s life as he lay dying.

As head of the United Mine Workers, Trumka ordered a nationwide strike against Peabody Coal in 1993. On July 22, a non-union worker, Eddie York, was shot in the back of the head and killed as he attempted to pass striking coal workers. Picketers continued to throw rocks after York was shot, preventing his would be rescuers from assisting him.^[14]. Trumka and other United Mine Workers officials settled a wrongful death lawsuit with Mr. York’s widow out of court in 1997.

And it was following that vicious display of supreme ugly violence that Richard Trumka delivered his “he got just what he deserved” remark.

Which is to say, the man whose union thugs murdered a man, and then threw rocks at the rescue workers trying to save his life – the man who subsequently so callously said, “If you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you’re going to burn your finger” – THAT MAN IS DARING TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF SARAH PALIN INCITING VIOLENCE????

What we need is freedom from savage union violence.  Not bitching about Sarah Palin’s demands for reform of a broken system.

And this ugly, fat, loathsome pig of a man has the naked hypocrisy to claim that Sarah Palin is inciting violence?  For using the word “reload” and for using what is now proven to have been surveyor symbols to pinpoint vulnerable Democrat districts?  Really?

In promoting Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO demonstrated that they are perfectly at home with violence.  Not only “calling for it,” but actively causing it.  And until they fire this fat rat bastard, they can kindly keep their obnoxious hypocrite mouths shut when it comes to taking the moral high ground on anything, let alone accusations of inciting violence.

Left Attacks Michelle Bachmann For Inciting Violence; Obama Told Crowds To Bring Guns

The chutzpah of the Democrat Party and their mainstream media lackeys is alarming.

From CBS:

Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Republican from Minnesota, railed against the “gangster government” before thousands of Tea Party protesters on Thursday, but that kind of rhetoric can have serious consequences, former President Bill Clinton said Thursday.

“They are not gangsters,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview with the New York Times. “They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”

The former president, who was in his first term in office when Timothy McVeigh bombed an Oklahoma City federal building, drew parallels between the anti-government rhetoric being used now and what was being said then. He will speak about the Oklahoma City terrorist attack and its current relevance at a symposium today.

You’ll have to forgive me for being somewhat confused: Is Michelle Bachmann’s “gangster government” remark worse than Bill Clinton’s remark about Barack Obama that “he’s got the political instincts of a Chicago thug“???

You see, given the fact that Bill Clinton himself said that the country is being run by a Chicago thug, why would it be so surprising that we’ve got a gangster government?  I mean, Chicago thug + president = gangster government.  It’s like a math equation.

In any event, I’m just 100% certain that Slick Willy decried the hateful and violence-inducing rhetoric of Barack Obama:

Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

Sen. Barack Obama talks at a town hall meeting at Radnor Middle School in Wayne, Pa., Saturday, June 14. (AP)

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

And murder in Philadelphia is over three times the national average.

What’s that?  Bill Clinton DIDN’T decry Obama’s invocation of clearly violent metaphors?  He didn’t even say, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘bring’ is”?  But that would mean he’s just a cheap political opportunist, not to mention a demagogue.

Barack Obama implored his supporters to arm themselves with guns and shoot people who would only have knives.  He was inciting people to violence in a city that has a documented record of murderous violence.

Michelle Bachmann merely used a term to describe our government as thieves.  She didn’t advocate mowing them down with guns, as Obama did.

At least according to the “logic” of the left, he did.  Too bad they’re too dishonest to look at their own rhetoric before demonizing everybody else’s.

I’ll tell you what: let’s demand that Barack Obama and Michelle Bachmann both resign in disgrace for their hateful rhetoric.  Just don’t be a bunch of screaming hypocrite turds for decrying Michelle Bachmann unless you first yell yourself hoarse decrying Barack Obama.

Before this nonsense the Democrats and their media tools were out decrying Sarah Palin’s “targeting” Democrat seats.  It didn’t matter one iota that Sarah Palin didn’t used a “target” symbol, but rather a surveyor’s symbol; nor did it matter than Democrats used actual “target” symbols to “target” Republican seats.  Neither the Democrats nor the media are either honest or fair enough to concern themselves with such facts.

And where were either Bill Clinton or the mainstream media when the left was demonizing George Bush something fierce? Where were they when Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters got a crowd frothing mad? Where were they when that same crowd starting chanting, “FUCK THE USA!!!”??? Where were they when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told a screaming crowed, “I’m a fan of disruptors!”??? Why was it so okay during the Bush derangement years, but so terrible now?

Why was “dissent the highest form of patriotism” when dissent was directed against George Bush, but the most loathsome form of evil when it is directed at Barack Obama?

There was a time when ‘D’ stood for Democrat; today it stands for Demagogue, Dishonest, Deceitful, Despicable, and Depraved.

Reconciliation As Nuclear Option: Note To Democrats – Republicans Have THEIR ‘Nuclear Option,’ Too

So I drag a woman walking down the sidewalk into a dark ally and tell her I would very much like to have sex with her – and it has to be done now, without debate.  She refuses; no negotiation, no compromise.  And of course I rape her.  The question is, who is to blame for the rape?

According to the Democrats’ view, it is clearly the woman.

President Barack Obama now realizes he probably will have to pass health reform with Democratic votes alone, White House officials say…

“We were forced into this by Republicans,” one official said.

Headline: “I was forced to rape…,” claims rapist.

The Republicans are like the woman; they oppose a government takeover of health care the way the woman opposes having sex with a stranger.  But because they stand up for their principles and refuse to compromise their values, they get raped.

The Republicans can’t stop anything the Democrats do.  Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  Demagoguing Republicans for the Democrats’ failure to come together is both absurd and immoral.  It is transparently false.  The only real battle going on is between liberal and conservative Democrats.

So why blame Republicans?  Because Democrats are demagogues.

Today Obama said:

“I think early on, a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, ‘Look, let’s not give him a victory, maybe we can have a replay of 1993, ’94, when Clinton came in, he failed on health care and then we won in the mid-term elections and we got the majority. And I think there are some folks who are taking a page out that playbook,”

It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that Democrats haven’t offered Republicans ANYTHING they want, but only EVERYTHING they hate.  It’s not about the fact that not only were Republicans shut out of crafting health care legislation, but even Blue Dog DEMOCRATS were shut out of the process.

This is so like Obama: he depicts himself as standing loftily above everyone around him as the sole determiner of truth and justice – and then anyone who disagrees with him has the lowest politically partisan motives.  It’s really a remarkable trick for a man who was THE most liberal US Senator the year before he began his run for the presidency.

When Democrats talk about “going solo,” they aren’t just talking about using their overwhelming majority to impose ObamaCare – because they don’t have the Democrat votes for it.  Rather, they are talking about using a rare parliamentary procedure called “reconciliation”:

The debate over health care reform could be heading in a new direction. Democrats are considering going at it alone. That would mean trying to pass it without Republican support.

Caution: Relations between Dems and the GOP could get toxic.

Democrats want to use a process called reconciliation. It would only require 51 votes in the Senate to get a health care bill passed. Normally, a bill would require 60 votes to be passed. Also, with the reconciliation process, only 20 hours of debate would be allowed, no filibuster would be allowed, stamping out opposition debate.

Reconciliation was created for budget items, because the federal government has a constitutional requirement to pass a budget.  The measure has never been used to advance legislation – although Bill Clinton threatened to use it to ram through his health care plan in 1993.  Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, who drafted the reconciliation process in 1974, was opposed to Clinton’s maneuver – just as he is opposed to Barack Obama’s doing it now.

Even Robert Byrd is adamant that reconciliation not be used to reform healthcare, as it leads down a slippery slope. Byrd is important here, because he developed the now-called Byrd Rule, that sets six conditions by which a provision can be excluded from reconciliation. This was intended to prevent abuse of the reconciliation tactic; otherwise, what stops anyone at anytime using this trick to avoid filibuster? The six conditions simply demand that if any provision of the bill is not about the budget, deficits, surpluses, or funding, then the whole package is thrown out.

This illegitimate abuse of the reconciliation as a “nuclear option” would poison any chance of bipartisanship for years – even decades – to come.

But it is well within the mindset of a president who falsely promised to be a “‘new politician’ who had risen above the partisan divide and didn’t have to lower himself into the gutter of the political past.”

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a different occasion.

Using reconciliation as a nuclear option wouldn’t be lowering oneself in a gutter; it would be growing gills and living in a sewer system filled with the very worst kind of toxic waste.

Republicans are finally starting to learn – about a decade late – that it’s time they started bringing guns to the fight with Democrats, too.

Don’t think the use of reconciliation won’t have massive consequences.

It should be known that Republicans have a nuclear option of their own:

[T]he Republicans can shut down the Senate for the next  year.  Those unfamiliar with the parliamentary procedure may not realize that a great many steps get skipped by unanimous consent.  Bill-reading is just one example.  One Senator can force each and every bill to be read aloud at every appearance it makes on the Senate floor, including when they are sent to committee.  For ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, one bill reading could take a week, keeping the Senate floor locked off from any other business.

All Republicans can do is stand up for their conservative values, and try to rally the American people to their cause.  They can’t stop the Democrats from passing a massive government takeover of health care along party lines.  They can’t even mount a filibuster without Democrats crossing over to join them.

All Democrat lies aside; this isn’t about a bill that Republicans won’t support.  It’s about a bill that can’t even sustain Democrat support.

If Democrats invoke the illegitimate process of a nuclear option to pass health care, they will start the nastiest war this country has seen since our Civil War in 1861.  It will lead to a political climate that will be uglier than any American has ever seen in his or her lifetime.

The conservative American Spectator writes:

While the White House has been floating the idea of using reconciliation to pass health care legislation with a simple majority of 51 votes, it should be seen as an empty threat. Let’s even set aside the fact that it would be a declaration of war that would shut down the Senate, that it would remove any pretense that Obama is a post-partisan president, and that ramming an unpopular bill down the throats of the public is not a politically astute move. Even if Democrats wanted to risk all of that for the greater goal of passing health care legislation, they couldn’t do it.

I hope they are right.  But I will not be the least bit surprised if it isn’t an empty threat at all.  Rather, what I regard as “empty” was the “post-partisan” promises (dare I say it again) of THE most liberal U.S. Senator the year before he ran for the presidency.

Be vigilant.  And be ready to go absolutely ballistic if this massive violation into our constitutional democracy is rammed down our throats.

Health Care Debate: As Charges of Nazism Abound, Which Side Is Right?

Nancy Pelosi upped the ante in the health care debate when she responded to a media question in the following manner:

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”

That being in addition to her reference to town hall protesters as “simply un-American.”

Well, first of all, Nancy Pelosi calls health care opponents “Astroturf,” and the propagandist mainstream media have duly found evidence of one or two emails from conservative groups instructing opponents of health care how to have maximum effect.  Overlooked by both Pelosi and her media lackeys is the fact that liberal organizations are literally PAYING people to “defend Obama’s health care.”

The image she tries to project is a bunch of goose-stepping Nazis bringing their beloved swastikas with them like lucky charms.

Conservatives immediately complained: thousands of conservatives have attended town hall meetings around the country, and most of them hadn’t even SEEN a swastika at a town hall, much less carried one themselves.

But even the uber uber uber leftist Media Matters, trying to document that at least SOMEBODY really was carrying a swastika, end up inadvertently demonstrating a very different picture.

So there are your “swastika-toting conservatives.”  A frightening mob of Nazis, they aren’t.

The thing is, what they are clearly saying is that they DON’T want Nazism or Swastikas.  And they’re afraid that we’re seeing something in this health care agenda that smacks of the things they’re afraid of.

So a very, VERY few conservatives have brought signs that express their connection of ObamaCare to incipient Nazism.  Is that so awful?  First let us compare it to how Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, and Democrat protesters have used the word “Nazi.”

Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin compared American soldiers to Nazis:

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

Barack Obama compared our entire country to Nazism:

“…just to take a, sort of a realist perspective…there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

And of course images linking George W. Bush to Hitler or the devil are a dime a dozen.  Here’s a picture at a liberal protest that manages to do both at once, giving Bush both devil horns and a Hitler mustache:

There’s a rather substantial compilation of Bush-as-Hitler comparisons here.  But given the vast quantity of Bush derangement syndrome, it isn’t – and frankly can’t possibly be – anywhere near complete.

So on one hand you have to simply laugh (as in the kind of intense and sustained laughter that could literally cause you to die) at the sheer galling in-your-face hypocrisy and demagoguery of Nancy Pelosi and the left.  The self-righteous, “How dare you?  How DARE you?” tone doesn’t suit them at all.

But while the above deflates any liberal claim to outrage, it doesn’t justify throwing around Nazi Swastikas or using the word “fascist” at the Democrat’s health care plan.  Do these protesters have any better justification than that?

I believe they do.  And here’s why.

Reason One: Rush Limbaugh added a little gasoline to the fire that Nancy Pelosi started when he pointed out the visual similarity between the ObamaCare symbol and the Swastika.  His point was that if pointing out Swastika symbols was good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander as well.

Of course, the mainstream media came completely unglued.  Rush Limbaugh played a rather lengthy montage of talking-point media outrage on his August 7 broadcast.

But apart from the obvious surface artistic similarities that people either recognize or refuse to recognize, there is a somewhat deeper and much more profound  issue: Obama is essentially taking the symbol for medicine, and combining it with his own political campaign symbol.  The result is the ostentatious politicizing of health care as ideology. It truly IS ObamaCare as Obama’s own symbol for it reveals!!! We haven’t seen anything like that in this country since the LAST time we embraced significant elements of fascism in our politics over 70 years ago.  And it is dangerous.

And a growing number of people are realizing it.

Reason two: Politically, there are some rather frightening political developments from within the Obama administration.  Former “journalist”-turned Obama hack Linda Douglas reveals both how corrupt journalism has become and how fascistic Obama can truly be in this pitch:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

When was the last time you were asked to turn in people practicing their free speech rights to the White House?  The White House is asking people to turn in emails, web sites, and even people in “casual conversation.”  Can you imagine if the Bush White House had taken this course to collect information on protesters against the Iraq War?  The New York Times would have run a 300-part series detailing it as rabid fascism.  In this case, the blatant paranoia – and yes, the fascism – is being carried out by Barack Obama.

Reason three: But that’s not the only connection Democrat-activists now have with fascism.  Now there’s also the “new Fascisti” in the form of union thugs who are coming in to intimidate and even beat conservatives at town halls.  In fascist Italy, the Fascisti were the Blackshirted men who broke up opposition rallies with fists and whatever else was needed.  In Hitler’s rise to power, it was the SA Brownshirts.  Now it’s the SEIU Blueshirts.  This certainly isn’t the first time Democrats have relied on union thuggery to accomplish their goals.

After decrying town hall health care protesters as an “angry mob,” Democrats are now bringing in goons to physically intimidate health care protesters.

It was Barack Obama who said:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

And this former community organizer who is so outraged that communities have been organizing has brought a gun in the form of union thugs to the “knives” of mostly elderly ObamaCare protesters.

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused elderly health care protesters “of trying to sabotage the democratic process,” by showing up at Democrat politicians town halls and demanding answers and shouting when they don’t get them.  But look at what’s happening:

Over 1,000 St. Louis Tea Party Taxpayers showed up to attend the Russ Carnahan town hall meeting in South St. Louis. They were Locked Out! But… The Carnahah staff was sneaking in SIEU members in the side door marked “handicapped.”

Is shutting out American citizens and barring them from access to their elected leaders not the REAL “sabotage of the democratic process”?  How is stacking the political deck with your own people while deliberately shutting out your political opponents not fascist?  And as we’ll also see, how is bringing in burly union thugs to physically manhandle people for trying to express their political opinions not fascist?

In Tampa, Fla: Kathy Castor’s burly union thugs manhandled a small elderly man (in the green shirt) with stage 4 cancer and shut the doors on protesters’ faces to prevent opposing opinions from being heard.

The above footage is a little confusing.  One of the protesters who was physically manhandled by the four burly thugs shoving them around at the same event tells his story.

Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative, was beaten by four thugs at another event as he offered “Don’t Tread on Me” flags while trying to get into a town hall meeting in Missouri.

Is that the only thing that prompts people to compare ObamaCare to Nazism via their homemade posters of Swastikas with the red line through of “NO!” through them?

Not even close.

Let us explore the real reason that so many people – both Republican and Democrat – are so virulently opposing this health care plan.

Reason four: There’s more than ample evidence that – contrary to Obama’s and the Democrats’ denials – that they very much DO want a government takeover of health care.  And more and more people are realizing that this massive influx of pure socialism is not the American way.

Nearly three out of four (72%) Americans believe ObamaCare will add to the deficit, according to the most recent Quinnipiac University poll.

The current number being thrown around for Obama’s health care is $1.6 trillion over ten years.  But government routinely massively underestimates its costs, as I’ve documented in the past.  The CBO was off by 633% in its estimate of the cost of Medicare; and off by 10,900% in estimating the cost of Medicaid special hospitals.  A reasonable figure – based on an average of past CBO underestimation of government cost to fund government programs – is that ObamaCare will cost about $13 trillion over ten years.

Our debt has exploded under Barack Obama.  As the Wall Street Journal’s Michael Boskin put it:

Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined.

And that explosion is going to have huge consequences down the road.

If we put our health care system under government control, it is absolutely unavoidable that we will have to massively ration our health care resources down the road.  And there’s the rub.

Somebody is going to suffer from neglect down the road, as scarce medical resources are allocated to some rather than others.  And the elderly – who 1) are no longer represented in the work force while 2) consuming the lion’s share of medical resource – are going to start getting the short end of the stick.

The Obama administration may not want to admit it, but they have already embraced the idea of denying medical care to senior citizens, given their president’s choice of czars and top advisers.

Take Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (White House Chief-of-staff Rahm’s brother) – PLEASE.  Dr. Emanuel is the health-policy adviser at Obama’s Office of Management and Budget and is also a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

In January of THIS YEAR, Dr. Emanuel – who is a principal architect of the Democrat’s health care plan – wrote:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

For those of you who don’t know what “attenuated” means, let me save you from heading for your dictionary.  It means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Basically, in Dr. Emanuel’s usage, it means, “Time to make room for the next generation and shove off, Grandma and Grandpa.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s, you start becoming toast.

Take  Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

Which very much jives with what Obama told a woman concerning her mother:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

Don’t let the coffin lid hit your face on the way out, Grandma and Grandpa.

Glenn Beck brought out these statements on his August 6 TV program, adding that he wouldn’t let these men bring him a can of Coke, much less give them the power to make health care policy and determine who lives and who dies.

Right now the decision as to how to allocate medical resources is divided up between innumerable people and organizations, both government and private.  But if the “public option” wins the day, it will be centralized by men like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Cass Sunstein.  And as the government takes over health care, and as debt eats up government funding, men and women like Emanuel and Sunstein are going to be choosing death by denial of medical resources to increasingly more and more people.

THAT’S your big Reason.  Rationed care.  Denial of resources to the elderly.  Death by neglect.  THAT’S why health care protesters are screaming and shouting.  THAT’S why people are carrying signs saying NO to the Swastika symbol of Nazi fascism.  And with all due respect, it is a damn good reason to be frightened and pissed off to no end.

Keep your damned fascist paws off my parents’ health care, Obama.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, liberal judicial activist of liberal judicial activists, had this to say about valueless life on the younger side (as opposed to Emanuel’s and Sunstein’s valueless life on the older side):

Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote in 1996:

“Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”

Enter Eugenics right out of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and right out of Adolf Hitler, the architect of Nazism.  Enter the reason why so many Planned Parenthood clinics are STILL primarily located in black neighborhoods all over America – i.e., “growth in populations we don’t want to have too many of.”  Enter the reason Planned Parenthood is STILL comfortable with the idea of selectively aborting black babies.

And lest you forget, the infamous 1930s-era Tuskegee experiment – the racist and eugenics-based study that studied the effects of syphilis on deliberately untreated black men – ran straight through FDR’s New Deal, and through the course of his entire presidency.

Democrats are working to build a state in which it is the state which decides whether or not classes of people have the right to life, or the right to health care resources.  They want to centralize decision-making, and make health care decisions for everyone so they can further control the economy (health care is 1/6th of the economy) and further control individual behavior.

The late (and very, very great) Dr. D. James Kennedy once prophetically said:

“Watch out, Grandpa; because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

One need only look at Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s chart depicting the odds of receiving medical care versus age to see that the day Dr. Kennedy warned us about is now coming with a vengeance.

So who’s right in throwing out comparisons of Nazism?  If the choice is between Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the health care plan they’re pushing versus the angry crowds showing up at town hall meetings to oppose the plan, it’s not even close.  First of all, let no one forget that “NAZI” stoof for the “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  It was national socialism, as in the sort of socialism health care protesters are afraid of.  Ronald Brownstein, senior writer at the National Journal, said recently that “The defining gamble of Barack Obama’s presidency is that the public today is willing to accept more government activism…“.   Don’t think for a second that the Nazis did not build a vast government health care system, which they then used to advance their political agenda.  And the German national government medical system under Nazism looked far more like the system that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi want to impose than anything that the people shouting at town halls want to see.