Nuggets of Wisdom

Thursday, February 24, 2011

COMING SOON: New YouTube Videos And Projects

Just realized that I haven’t created a new video for my YouTube account in over three months. So I plan to upload five new videos March 1, including four MSNBC Fails videos and the final installment in my Voices Of Reason series (Ron Paul—w00t!).

I also plan to create a few new video series over the next few weeks:

Voices of Insanity: The exact opposite of my Voices Of Reason series. Instead of highlighting rational individuals who stand for common sense, I’ll be highlighting lunatics who spout complete nonsense. To include Alex Jones, Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garofalo, Mike Malloy, and Senator Alan Grayson.

Bill Maher Is A Douchebag: Similar to my Janeane Garofalo Is A Dumb Bitch series. Will offer commentary on the complete nonsense spewed by everyone’s least favorite celebrity moonbat.

Please note that these videos and projects are tentative and subject to change.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

The Left Doesn't Care About Civility! – Part Deux

I said it before, and I’ll say it again: the left-wing does not care about civility! They only complain about “violent rhetoric” when it comes from the right-wing. When it comes from their side, they say nothing; and when you point it out to them, they will cry foul and accuse you of creating a “false equivalency.”

Bologna!

If they truly cared about civility, then they would speak out against “violent rhetoric” regardless of which side used it. But they don’t. But what else can you expect from the left but hypocrisy and double standards?

Here’s another great article revealing how violent the left-wing can be. This time, its by Frank Salvato, Contributing Editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Just over a month ago, President Obama took to a stage in Arizona to decry what he perceived as the caustic nature of political discourse in our country. On this issue, and very few others, we agree. But Mr. Obama was delinquent in pointing out the individuals and organizations – the factions – responsible for stoking the fires of discontent and, dare I say, hatred. The unspoken reason for this omission is because most – if not all – of the caustic rhetoric – the unbridled hatred – comes from the Progressive Left and there are myriad examples to prove the point beyond argument.

Truth be told, the Progressive-Left in the United States, as they exist today, are not unlike the arrogant, defiant, naïve teenager; so full of self-righteousness yet so incredibly oblivious to the fact that there are consequences to each and every action. And just like that rebellious teenager, when it comes time to reap the pains of what their actions sowed, they become bitter, angry and sometimes violent in their defiance. The troubles created by their lack of vision and their selfishness, however, remain for others to rectify. And just like the defiant teenager, those of the Progressive-Left would rather blame everyone else for the problems they face; the problems society faces because of the obstinacy and narcissism.

The mainstreaming of the Progress-Left’s insolence has manifested in the evolution of malcontents who once bombed government buildings and killed law enforcement officers, who rioted in the streets of Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, into many who have now achieved elected office, including the status of US Representatives, Senators and, yes, even the Presidency of the United States. The difference between yesterday and today is that today the consequences of their actions – the cost for their lack of vision and their arrogance – is much higher.

So, what happens when those of today’s Progressive-Left are thwarted in their quest for self-serving achievement; what happens when the generation of artificial self-esteem doesn’t get their way? What happens when their employment of the Alinsky rules doesn’t bear fruit? Well, they hate...and they hate with a viciousness that should give everyone in the world – not just the United States, but the world – a fright.

Hate of the Person

Recently, amid the chaos and violence of the Egyptian upheaval, CBS News’ Lara Logan, a seasoned war correspondent, was brutally beaten and sexually assault for a period of time. It wasn’t until a group of Muslim women and approximately 20 Egyptian soldiers came to Ms. Logan’s aid that the assault was stopped. Ms. Logan was hospitalized for her injuries and evacuated to the United States where she was hospitalized further.

In the face of this unacceptable attack on a woman who was trying to report to the world the events taking place in a land in turmoil, Nir Rosen, an alleged journalist who has been published by Time Magazine, The New Yorker and The New York Times Magazine – liberal and Progressive publications, one and all, submitted the following “Tweets” upon hearing the news of Ms. Logan’s assault:

“Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger."

“Look, she was probably groped like thousands of other women.”

Mr. Rosen, who was forced to immediately surrender his title of Fellow at New York University’s Center on Law and Security for his hatred, later offered the “Sorry, I was insensitive” defense.

The fact remains, that was the initial response by Mr. Rosen and, thus, we all must understand that his “Tweeted” sentiments are, in fact, his true sentiments. The hate – the misogynistic hate – he spewed toward a woman who was sexually assaulted and beaten at the hands of a vicious mob cannot be erased and must be recognized for what it is: It is who Mr. Rosen is, period. He is a hater...and he is a Progressive.

Recently, at a rally to protest the Koch Brothers – two people who spend a considerable amount of money to champion Conservative causes, but nowhere near what George Soros spends to advance the cause of Progressive globalism – occasional New Media Journal contributor Christian Hartsock asked people in the crowd how they felt about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Their answers demonstrated a hatred for Justice Thomas that rivaled the hatred of those who celebrated the Ku Klux Klan:

“Put him back in the field...He’s a scumbag, he’s a dumb-sh*t scumbag. Throw him back in the field.”

“We cut off his toes, one by one, and feed them to him.”

“I don’t know, I’m all about peace, but I say torture.”

“What do we do with him? String him up! And his wife too, let’s get rid of Ginny...[Then we can] start all over...Scalia...who are the other assholes? String him up...Thomas...his wife...Scalia...Roberts, oh my god...”

“Hang him.”

While these people were protesting two American citizens, natural born American citizens, who observe their right and obligation to engage the governmental process – incredible, in and of itself – they called for the lynching, torture and maiming of a United States Supreme Court Justice, his wife and his fellow Conservative Justices simply because they held a different political opinion than they did. The racial hatred speaks for itself.

I could go into every instance where the Progressive-Left smeared, defamed and lied about President George W. Bush over the years but there isn’t enough space here to do justice to the injustice incurred by Mr. Bush and his family.

The ironic thing about the hatred of the Progressive-Left is that it is the Progressive-Left that not only professes the need for tolerance (no, that’s not a laugh line) but they are the ones that insisted on advancing hate-speech legislation, yet the powers that be never inflict that non-freedom of speech on any of their transgressions.

Hate of the Process

This week, in Wisconsin, labor union operatives organized teachers, jail guards and other unionized government workers to protest a move by Wisconsin’s newly elected Republican governor, Scott Walker, and the new Republican majority in Wisconsin’s legislature, to push back against over-reaching union benefits in the face of a state budget crisis. Walker and legislative Republicans wanted to strip most public employees of their collective-bargaining rights, while mandating that they pay more into their own pension funds.

But the vote was not to be. The entire Wisconsin Senate Democrat caucus abdicated their responsibility to their constituents by leaving the state so as to create a situation where there was no quorum, thus, keeping the Wisconsin State Senate from being able to execute its constitutional duties.

Not only did out-of-state labor union organizers descend on Wisconsin’ capitol to gin-up the Progressive-Left, but Pres. Obama’s own organization, Organizing for America, played an active role in derailing the business of the State of Wisconsin.

But, this isn’t the first time that Progressive-Left activists, elected through the Democrat Party, have interfered with the execution of state business.

In 2003, Texas Senate Democrats, in the minority in the chamber – as is also the case with the Wisconsin mutiny, left the state in an effort to thwart the chamber’s constitutional duty to examine the redistricting of districts as mandated by the US Census.

In Maryland, during a heated debate on the extension of in-state government benefit rights to illegal aliens, Baltimore City Senator Joan Carter Conway bellowed into the face of a fellow City Senator, Norman Stone, who was arguing for preserving rights for legal residents:

“I don’t want to hear about the Constitution.”

These three examples, when coupled with the dismal and wholly unconstitutional tactics employed by US House Speaker for the 111th Congress Nancy Pelosi (P-CA)and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to ram through health insurance reform legislation, i.e. the behind closed door sessions, the usurpation of House and Senate rules, the lockout of Republicans in crafting of legislative language, provide a stellar example of how Progressive-Leftists hate the process that is Constitutional Republicanism.

Hate of the Country

That the Progressive-Left hates the United States of America – and everything it stands for less their right to wreck havoc over the US Constitution – is more than evident. From President Obama’s continuous apology to the world for perceived wrongs committed by our country, to the elitists in higher education who systematically brainwash as many students a possible against the opportunity presented by Capitalism and a free market system, to Progressive-Leftists like Code Pink, so devoid of reality that they believe radical Islamist violence is caused by US foreign policy (please explain the Islamist violence in Indonesia, Africa, China and Russia please), the Progressive-Left’s hatred for our country leaves at least me asking: Why the hell do you want to live here if it is so horrible a place?

The truth of the matter, when it comes to hate, is this: The Progressive-Left is very good at screaming that Conservatives or the Tea Party or people who practice their faith are budding with repressed hatred; that they are intolerant, uninformed, mean-spirited, organized and hate-filled. But over the years I have come to understand one very important thing. If the Progressive-Left accuses you of something, it is out of guilt; it is because they, themselves, are guilty of the charges. If you don’t believe me, just ask Lara Logan, Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin or George W. Bush.

Maybe that’s why they hate religion so much...it facilitates a conscience.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Maher Gets Something Right: Women Better Treated In America Than Islam

As you can probably tell from reading my blog, I’m no fan of leftist comedian Bill Maher. He claims that the left-wing doesn’t use violent rhetoric when they obviously do. He claims to be a rationalist, even though he holds irrational positions like opposing vaccination and praising terrorist attacks. He, like Michael Moore, thinks that Americans are stupid for opposing socialism.

But as the old saying goes, “a broken clock can still tell the correct time twice a day.”

Unlike other moonbats, Maher rejects the false belief of cultural relativism, or multiculturalism, which claims that all cultures are equal—more specifically, that Islam is no worse than any other religion or culture. Maher has been unafraid to praise the superiority of Western values over the archaic, draconian values of radical Islam—something that would classify him as a bigot or racist or white supremacist if he were a conservative.

Last Friday, on his show Real Time with Bill Maher, he argued with his guests (which included PBS’s Tavis Smiley,  CNBC’s Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, and filmmaker Kevin Smith) on whether women are treated just as poorly in America as they are in Islamic countries. His opinion (which is the most obvious): they aren’t!



Maher: I think it’s fair to say Muslim men have a bad attitude about women in general. And I would just like to say to them that you’re never going to have this revolution happen unless there is also a sexual revolution that goes with it. [Notices Smiley shaking his head] Really, Tavis? You have a—Muslim men don’t have a problem with women?

Smiley: No, I’m not going to argue that. Let me say—let me say up front, I agree with you.

Maher: I was going to cut your head off.

Smiley: Uh, better my head than what Kevin…

Maher: All right! All right!

Smiley: Um, I was going to say that, first of all, obviously what happened to Lara Logan is reprehensible, uh, horrific, we can’t find a language to describe what—what happened to her. But having said that, if our democracy, Bill, um, if, if, if our, if our—if our, readiness for democracy in this country is based upon, determined by, demonstrated by our respect for women, then we ain’t ready for democracy, and this…

Maher: That is a false equivalence.

Smiley: No, no, no, no, no. Absolutely not!

Maher: Are you serious? You think this country, the men in this country have an attitude that even comes close to…

Smiley: I’m suggesting to you if you think that the way we treat women in this country—with patriarchy still alive and well, sexism still alive and well—is determinative or demonstrative of how well our democracy runs, I think you don’t understand how maltreated women are still then in this society. That’s all I’m saying.

Maher: What I’m saying is you have no perspective. You have no perspective.

Smiley: I’m saying you have no perspective.

Maher: No. Well—[to Cabrera] go ahead.

Cabrera: I was just, if you look at the history of the United States, I would say that actually democracy leads to better attitudes toward women because when the United States was founded, of course, women couldn’t vote, African-Americans couldn’t vote, and we got there eventually. So, I think you’ve got it reversed.

Maher: No I don’t. 19 of 22 Arab countries, women cannot vote. In Egypt, uh, women, if you want to divorce your husband, you have to go to court. If a man wants to divorce his wife, he just has to say that, what they call the triple [undistinguishable] or something. “I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee.” That must happen like on the first fight. It must be so…

Smith: I’ve been trying that twelve years of marriage. It don’t work, man. It don’t work.

Maher: In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive a car, sail a boat, fly a plane, which is why their tampon ads are just horseback riding.

Cabrera: But, don’t you think, in the end, people have a right—eh, to self-determination, or are you saying that they shouldn’t—how does—a continuation of strong-man rule lead to better attitudes towards women?

Maher: I’m just saying civilization begins with civilizing the men. The women are sort of already there. It’s, you, you have to bring along the men, and I know this is anecdotal, but, you know, talk to women who’ve ever dated an Arab man: the reviews are not good. They have a sense of entitlement.  They will say, yes, we put women on a pedestal—as long as they’re obedient, they’re on the pedestal.

Cabrera: Every man I’ve ever dated has a sense of entitlement. I don’t know…

Maher: Have you ever dated a Middle Eastern man?

Smiley: All I’m saying respectfully is, and I don’t, I don’t disagree with the fact that they got a long way to go. What I’m trying to suggest to you is that when we have these conversations about how they treat women, as if somehow we treat women better in this country…

Maher: We do!

Smiley: …it demonizes Muslims, it demonizes Muslims.

Maher: No! It’s not demonizing. That’s saying that I’m prejudiced. I’m saying I’m not prejudiced. That’s pre-judging. I’m not pre-judging—I’m judging. I’m judging. They’re worse. What’s wrong with just saying that? You’re a cultural relativist. It’s not relative. Yes, it is relative…



Smiley: I don’t think there’s a worser version of sexism. It’s either right or it’s wrong.

Maher: Really?

Smiley: It’s either acceptable or it’s unacceptable. You’re trying to shade this thing.

Maher: Let me give you two examples of how it might be worse. We talked about this a couple of years ago, but it was in the paper last week. A man in Buffalo, very successful man, a Muslim man named [undistinguishable], he ran a TV network in Buffalo aimed mostly at countering Muslim stereotypes. Um, he cut his wife’s head off. Got mad at her and cut his wife’s head off. He was convicted just last week, got 15 years to life. Boy, 15 years for cutting your wife’s head off. That’s a pretty good deal.



Cabrera: All these things were horrible, but are you saying they shouldn't be able to have democracy?

Maher: No I’m not—oh I’m not! I want them to have democracy. I’m just saying it’s not going to happen unless you get right with your attitudes about women. That has to come with this or it’s never going to happen.



Smiley: I think that it might surprise us, um, to go into our papers in this country every day, and to see stories just like this of how women are maltreated in this country every single day.

Maher: It’s such bull****!...I mean, in this country, we treat women badly because…

Smiley: We’re sexist, and we’re patriarchal!

Maher: …they don’t get equal pay, or someone calls you sugar tits, or something like that. In that, in those countries…

Smiley: You think that’s okay? You think that’s okay, man?

Maher: I don’t, but I don’t think it’s comparable to cutting their heads off, not letting them drive, not letting them work. I mean…

Smiley: And all, and all, and all I’m saying is we miss the point, if what you want to do is to compare, you win that argument. But my point is that it’s not about comparing, it’s about either right or wrong, how we treat people, and I think it’s wrong there, and it’s wrong here.

Maher: It’s more wrong there. Degree matters. Degree matters. Yes.

Smiley: Malcolm X said if you put, if you put a knife in my back—9 inches, and you put about 6, you call that progress. I still got a knife in my back. I don’t, I don’t necessarily believe degree always matters, Bill.

Maher: Really?

Smiley: Yeah!

Maher: Well, what would you rather do: make 80 cents on the dollar, or have your head cut off?

Smiley: I would rather have us stop acting like that we know the answers to everything, that we’re always right, that our way is always better, that we don’t make mistakes. That' we’re…

Maher: We don’t know the answers to everything, but I do know we treat women better.

Cabrera: I would have to agree with that.

Maher: You know what? When you tolerate intolerance, you’re not really being a liberal.

Demotivational Poster: Anti-Free Press

Anti-Free Press

"Because every day, this elected leader [Hugo Chavez] is called a dictator here [in America], and we just accept it! And accept it. And this is mainstream media, who should – truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies." – Sean Penn

“What do you mean ’knowing there are jailed journalists’? I think there should be more jailed journalists!” – Ann Coulter
About a year ago, actor Sean Penn—who often compared Bush to a dictator, accusing him of the “deconstruction of civil liberties” and “dangerously heightened presidential autonomy”—suggested that American journalists be jailed if they call Hugo Chavez a dictator. (Yes, wherever did they get the idea that Hugo Chavez was a dictator? Would a dictator jail political dissidents and journalists, violate human rights, and abolish presidential term limits, making him president for life?)

As could be expected, conservatives were infuriated (and rightfully so!) that Penn would suggest such a thing. But wasn’t it ironic that conservatives wildly applauded Ann Coulter for making a similar remark? When asked whether it was more important to remain allies with Israel or recognize that there are jailed dissidents and journalists, Coulter replied that there should be more jailed journalists.

Now I happen to be a longtime fan of Miss Coulter, though I disagree with half the things she says and stands for. This is one of those things. For there is no constitutional right more vital than freedom of speech and of the press. If the government has the power to silence people who criticize it, it has the power to get away with anything. After all, who’s going to tell them to stop?

How ironic is it that Ann Coulter and Sean Penn, who are on opposing sides of the political spectrum—one far-left, the other far-right, share the same disdain for freedom of the press? It only proves that both sides approve of free speech, provided it’s there own. Everyone else should be jailed!

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Another Racist, Violent Tea Party?

Racist, violent rhetoric polluted the air during a Tea Party protest earlier this month in Palm Springs.

"Put him back in the fields!" a grey-haired mustachioed hick shouted, referring to President Barack Obama.

“String him up, and his wife too!" a redneck hag yelled.

“Cut off his toes, one by one, and feed it to him!" a tramp in Paris-Hilton sunglasses suggested.



Oops! Did I say this was a Tea Party protest? I meant to say this was the “Uncloaking the Kochs" rally by the leftist group Common Cause. And the protesters were referring to Republican Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who, like Obama, is African-American.

Funny how moonbats like to criticize “racist” Tea Party protesters who portray Obama as a witch doctor or suggest he move back to Kenya, but don’t say a word when moonbat protesters suggest Clarence Thomas be lynched or hanged or sent back into the fields. But then again, that would be expecting consistency from moonbats.

I wonder: if a deranged moonbat attempted to assassinate Clarence Thomas, can we blame the protesters and their violent rhetoric for the incident?

Friday, February 18, 2011

Falling Out Of Love With Ann Coulter: “There Should Be More Jailed Journalists!”

I’ve been a long-time fan of Ann Coulter. I may not agree with her on everything, but I admire the amount of research she puts into her books (every page is filled with dozen of footnotes), as well as her courage to speak her mind, regardless of how many moonbats get offended.

But overtime, as I became more libertarian and less conservative in my politics, I began to disagree with her on more and more issues—from the Patriot Act to waterboarding, from Wikileaks to DADT. And I never really appreciated the vitriol she often spewed, whether she suggested that someone put rat poison in a Supreme Court Justice’s coffee, or that Timothy McVeigh bomb the New York Times building.

But her recent appearance at this year’s CPAC made me lose a great deal of respect for her. When asked what she thought was more important—being allies with Israel or knowing there are jailed journalists—she replied that there should be more jailed journalists. (More frightening: her answer received thunderous applause!)

As you can probably tell by my username, I am a strong proponent of free speech—our most important Constitutional right. If the government has the power to silence people who criticize it, it has the power to get away with anything. After all, who’s going to tell them to stop?

So you can only imagine how much it pained me to hear an inspiration of mine suggest that more dissident journalists should be jailed. It was bad enough when actor Sean Penn suggested a year ago that journalists be jailed for calling Hugo Chavez a dictator (you know, the obvious!). But this is just worse, especially coming from a woman who built her career on free speech.

Annie darling, I love your work, but you’ve officially lost half of my respect!

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Demotivational Poster: Huffington Post Comments

Huffington Post Comments

Last week, America Online bought the Huffington Post for $315 million, and gave Arianna Huffington control over AOL’s news and editorial content. I never read the news on AOL, which is my internet provider, but now I have more reason not to.

As you can probably tell, I don’t like the Huffington Post for obvious reasons—one of which is I have more than one brain cell! Huffington Post articles are dumb. Huffington post readers are dumber. Dumber still are comments left by Huffington Post readers—comments which amount to little more than blind praise and recycled liberal talking points.

Take the following “brilliant” observation left on the article How Christian Is Tea Party Libertarianism? (The article argues that the Tea Party isn’t Christian because, well, you know, Jesus commanded his followers to pay their taxes. And let’s not forget how He cared for the poor and needy; therefore, Christians need to care for the poor and needy by supporting inefficient government programs and bureaucratic healthcare systems!)

By far, the prime underlying force beneath the Tea Party movement is anger. Typically, it is anger over the individual Tea Party member's life not going the way he wants it, and anger over the national political and social landscape not being what they hoped it to be.

The election of an African American president, the every increasing acceptance of gays in society and the fact that not everyone is as upset as they are with the growing hispanic population (legal or otherwise) has forced them to come to grips with the fact that this is no longer a nation dominated by straight white christian males.

In order to answer the question as to how "christian­" is some aspect of the Tea Party, one need only examine the extent to which the emotions which are the underpinni­ngs of the Tea Party are "christian­".

If things like hate, jealousy, fear, selfishnes­s and desire to dominate and control are christian values, then the Tea Party is christian. If those aren't christian values, then neither is the Tea Party.

Oh boy! Where do I begin?

1) Of course anger is an underlying force in the Tea Party! Every protest is motivated by anger. Tea Party protestors are angry that the government is flushing their taxpayer money down the toilet, just as the anti-war protestors were angry that the government started two wars that accomplished jack squat. (Speaking of which, ever since Obama took office, attendance at anti-war protests has declined, even though Obama has done little to end the two wars. Just saying!)

2) Of course Tea Party members are angry that things aren’t going their way! Again, every protest is started because people feel things aren’t going their way. That’s why they’re protesting in the first place! Seriously, when was the last time you saw a non-angry protest where protestors cheered praises and waved signs showing their gratitude towards the government?

3) Will liberals please stop claiming that the Tea Party only hates Obama because he’s black? This talking point has been debunked so many times it’s not funny.

4) Will liberals also stop claiming that conservatives are white Christian heterosexual property-owning men who fear change and distrust anyone who isn't one of them? Once again, this talking point has been debunked so many times it’s not funny.

5) Obviously, none of the things he mentions are Christian values, as the Bible condemns hate (Leviticus 19:17-18, Ephesians 4:31-32), jealousy (Exodus 20:17, James 3:14-16), fear (Matthew 10:28-31), selfishness (Romans 15:1-2, Philippians 2:3), and desire to dominate and control (John 13:14-16, Proverbs 16:18-19). Granted, Christians do tend to do those things, but if they do, it’s always in defiance, rather than compliance, their religion.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go bang my head against a brick wall.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Patriot Act Weakened! Ron Paul For The Win!

Over the past few years, my political views have shifted from conservative to libertarian. One of the reasons for this change is that conservatives (or rather, Republicans) are no longer conservative. They claim to be for “limited government,” but only when it suits their political needs. They don’t want guns banned, but they want drugs to remain illegal. They’re against liberals imposing their “social engineering," but are for theocrats imposing their narrow-minded morality.

But perhaps the most obvious example of conservative hypocrisy is that they call healthcare reform unconstitutional (which it is!), but say nothing about the Patriot Act—which violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing for unwarranted search and seizures. Then again, they were the ones who created the darn thing!

But last night helped restore what little faith I had in Republicans (though only by a little), as 26 representatives (some Tea Party candidates) voted against extending three provisions in the Patriot Act. These provisions were especially invasive, allowing authorities to perform “roving wiretaps” without warrants, search through library records for “tangible” information, and spy on individuals not specifically affiliated with terrorists.

Granted, the majority of Republicans still voted for the extensions. And the Patriot Act is far from being repealed. But the more congressmen—both Republican and Democrat—who realize how blatantly unconstitutional the Patriot Act is, the closer we get to finally repealing it!

Here’s Ron Paul (one of the few—if not only—Republicans truly dedicated to limited government) lecturing last night’s Congress on the dangers of the Patriot Act:

The Left Doesn't Care About Civility!

When it comes to violence, in speech or action, liberals are hypocrites. Plain and simple. The left is infamous for using violent language and inciting violent acts. Point that out to them, though, and they will cry “false equivalency,” claiming that their violent rhetoric isn’t as bad as the right’s (even though violent rhetoric should never be excusable, regardless of which side uses it!).

Don’t be fooled. Liberals don’t care about civility. This article from OpenMarket.org explains it:

After the Tucson shooting, liberals lectured America, and especially conservatives, on the alleged need for more civility (even though there was no evidence that the shooter was influenced by any uncivil political rhetoric, and the shooter was not a conservative).

But the new era of civility didn’t last long, if it ever existed at all.  Some of the very people who loudly demanded civility from others quickly returned to their own deeply-ingrained habit of trash talk and hate-filled vitriol.

Liberal actor and activist Richard Dreyfuss set up a project to promote “civility in political discourse” after the shootings.  When he was asked about a liberal radio host’s yearning for the death of the “dirtbag” Dick Cheney, he praised it as “beautifully phrased,” endorsing an intemperate diatribe that also branded Cheney as an “enemy of the country,” and a “freakin’ loser.”

The liberal lobbying group Common Cause, which had hectored America about the need for civility, helped organize a demonstration outside a conference in California where participants called for the lynching of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Liberal Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) helped usher in the new Age of Civility by likening Republicans to Nazis like Joseph Goebbels.

The Washington Post and New York Times enlisted two prominent practitioners of trash talk to lecture America about the need for civility. Al Sharpton preached about the “dangers of inflammatory rhetoric” in the Washington Post, despite his own past history of helping incite a deadly race riot, and a court judgment against him for defamation arising out of the Tawana Brawley hate-crime hoax.   Ex-congressman Paul Kanjorski (D) lectured about the need for “civility” in the Times, despite his October 2010 statement that Florida governor Rick Scott (R) should be shot.

The Post op-ed writers who endorsed the calls for civility then paved the way for yet more civility, both by branding conservatives as spiteful lobotomy patients, and by insinuating that opponents of gun control are collectively guilty of subversion and nativism, writing that “the descriptions of President Obama as a ‘tyrant,’ the intimations that he is ‘alien’ and the suggestions that his presidency is illegitimate are essential to the core rationale for resisting any restrictions on firearms.”

Even as it prattled about the need for civility, the New York Times editorial board directed readers to its earlier diatribe that baselessly accused Republicans, the Tea Party, and conservative media of creating a climate of “division” and “anger” that made the Tucson shootings possible. The Times did so even though a column by its own David Brooks had earlier pointed out that there was “no evidence” that the shooter was influenced in any way by conservatives.

While the Post and the Times don’t seem at all concerned about the death threats recently made by liberal activists against Republican lawmakers in Florida and in Wisconsin, they are very up in arms about factual references to the health care law as being “job-killing”  (a claim based partly on Congressional Budget Office findings that Obamacare would reduce the size of the American labor force by perhaps 800,000 people). The Post’s Dana Milbank seems to think that criticizing the killing of an inanimate object (like a job) is violent rhetoric, and he recently wrote a long, sanctimonious editorial devoted almost entirely to the alleged incivility of referring to Obamacare as “job-killing,” which he regards as rhetorical “poison.”

Since the big-government policies they favor typically wipe out jobs  (like the $800 billion stimulus package, which wiped out jobs in America’s export sector, while subsidizing foreign green jobs, and which the CBO admitted would shrink the size of the U.S. economy in “the long run“), it’s not surprising that liberal journalists like Milbank would want to squelch discussion of “job-killing” policies.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

How To Argue For “Citizens United” (Or Why Corporate Personhood Isn’t So Scary!)

Over a year ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission that political spending by corporations (or unions or any special interests group) could not be regulated or prohibited by the federal government. Obviously, liberal pundits and politicians decried the Supreme Court decision, claiming it would bring an end to democracy and allow corporations to take over America.

Even to this day, moonbats are scheming to reinstate limits on political speech. Just recently, Vermont’s senator Virginia Lloyds proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would deny corporations (and other such organizations) personhood.

Let’s hope Lloyds and other moonbats in Vermont don’t get food poisoning from eating a can of SpaghettiOs, or become seriously injured riding a John Deere lawnmower. Because the only way they could sue the Cambell Soup Company or Deere & Company is if those corporations were considered persons—which is only possible through corporate personhood.

To combat the hysteria surrounding “Citizens United” and corporate personhood, I’m providing the following videos. Feel free to watch them so you can better tackle and debunk the misinformation being spewed by moonbats. (Remember kiddies: knowledge is power!)

This first video, surprisingly enough, is from a liberal (more specifically, an ACLU attorney!) called, well, LiberalViewer. He’s one of the few liberals who supports the “Citizens United” decision, claiming it defends free speech ("the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity"), and will, in the long run, benefit Americans by helping non-profit (rather than “for-profit”) organizations like Planned Parenthood, the NRA, and the Sierra Club voice their opinions before an election.




This next video is released by reason.tv—the YouTube account of the Reason Foundation. Not only does it highlight the insane fearmongering of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and President Barack Obama, but it also gives three reasons why those moonbats are wrong about “Citizens United”: most states already allow corporate political spending, corporations already influence politics through corporate media outlets, and more free speech—especially political speech—is never harmful to democracy.




This final video is from a user called ShaneDK—an outspoken libertarian with an extensive series on the U.S. Constitution. As the video title suggests, Shane debunks the lies behind “Citizens United” such as how the decision overturned the 100-year-old Tillman Act (when it didn’t). Of course, as he explains, most of these lies derive from the fact that the moonbats spreading them haven’t even read the Supreme Court decision!




Finally, for laughs and giggles (and to show how deranged moonbats can be), here’s a video by Davis Fleetwood—a moonbat so far-left, he makes Michael Moore look far-right! He desperately tries to argue how “Citizens United” makes voting obsolete (even though citizens can still vote—and thus have the final say—in elections, regardless of how much money corporations pump into campaigns).



Um, hey Hermit: you may want to go out once in a while! Staying in (so others may go out!) tends to drive one mentally insane, as you clearly demonstrate.