Dr. Ben Carson is hated on the left. Trayvon Martin is adored. Says a lot, doesn’t it?
Dr. Ben Carson is hated on the left. Trayvon Martin is adored. Says a lot, doesn’t it?
The background is recent remarks of Sarah Palin’s:
Palin said that the debt being accumulated will result in the next generation being “beholden to the foreign master.”
“Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children and borrowing from China,” Palin told a crowd of supporters…“When that money comes due – and this isn’t racist, but it’ll be like slavery when that note is due. We are going to beholden to the foreign master.”
It’s more likely that we will default on our debt, so Palin is not 100% correct. But she’s well on the right track. You always know she is, when she gets the Left to reveal its snarling hatred.
This time, Martin Bashir of MSNBC dropped his mask.
In his “Clear the Air” segment, Bashir lit into Palin straight away, referring to her as America’s “resident dunce” and characterizing her remarks as “scraping the barrel of her long-deceased mind, and using her all-time favorite analogy in an attempt to sound intelligent about the national debt…”
“One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood…In 1756, he records that a slave named Darby ‘catched eating kanes had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, sh-t in his mouth…Mrs. Palin…confirms if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, she would be the outstanding candidate.
In short, the left-wing Bashir suggested on TV that someone should forcibly defecate in Palin’s mouth.
Now, Bashir went on to apologize, but my question is this: If Rush Limbaugh had said it about Nancy Pelosi, would any amount of apology be enough?
Have not some other conservatives been chased from the airwaves after saying less and apologizing as much (or more)? Given that Bashir’s remarks were “wholly unacceptable” (as he says), why does MSNBC still have him? How low are they?
Item #366,720 in the archives of “The Left is and does, that of which it falsely accuses the Right.”
At MoveOn.org, more than 44,000 have called for the GOP leaders to be arrested for ‘seditious conspiracy’ over the recent government shutdown (and ‘default’ scare). As ZH points out, that’s more people than have signed up for Obamacare.
Needless to say, MoveOn’s petition is a FAIL on several levels: (more…)
Re: the Obamacare, shutdown, budget, default and debt ceiling debates…
I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.
Oh wait, did I say that? Or some jihadist American Taliban terrorist bomb-throwing hostage-taking TeaBaggerParty Ted Cruz-loving anarchist wingnut grandmother, maybe?
No, it was Hillary Clinton saying it about an earlier administration that was quaintly civil to its critics, compared to the present one.
No discussion is grownup, if the participants don’t know/acknowledge certain facts which President Obama, the Democrats and their media try to have people forget:
The people who run GayPatriot welcome intelligent disagreement with our views. If your disagreement ignores the above facts, sorry but it’s not intelligent.
As the adage goes, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”
NB: Originally, point 2 stated incorrectly that the Senate hadn’t passed a budget since 2009. Error fixed. (thanks Kurt!)
ADDENDUM: 13. Contra Obama, borrowing money “to pay our bills” is NOT paying our bills. When you buy something on credit, have you paid you bill? No, of course not. You’ve merely changed to whom you owe the payment (and perhaps when).
Speaking to construction workers in Rockville, MD today, he said:
Everybody here just does their job, right? You don’t – uh uh – If you’re working here, and in the middle of the day you just stopped and said “You know what, I wanna get something, but I don’t know exactly what I’m gonna get, but I’m just gonna stop working until I get – I’m gonna shut down the whole plant until I get something” – You get fired, right? Because, the deal is, you’ve already gotten hired, you’ve got a job, you’re getting a paycheck, and so you also are getting the pride of doing a good job and contributing to a business and looking out for your fellow workers. That’s what you’re getting.
Perhaps without realizing it, President Obama just perfectly described workers who ‘walkout’ or go on strike – and why they should be fired.
But there’s more. Obama made his surprising slam on workers who strike in an attempt to compare them to the congressional GOP who, as we know, are failing (so to speak) to give King Obama his full budget demands.
Top Obama administration figures compare the GOP to terrorists (for example, Dan Pfeiffer the other day). So do other top Democrats (for example, Harry Reid calling them ‘anarchists’, or Al Gore who accused Obamcare foes of ‘political terrorism’).
If the GOP are behaving just like striking workers, according to Obama, and if the GOP are (in the very same behavior) also terrorists, then…striking workers are kind of like terrorists, aren’t they? “Thanks, Obama!”
UPDATE: Peter Schiff has another quote on the Left’s demonizing of conservatives as terrorists, this one from talk host Stephanie Miller on the GOP being “suicide bombers” who are “trying to blow your children up”.
This is the Left, in 2013. If you happen to truly want fiscal responsibility, an end to the endless debt ceiling increases, or avoidance of the train wreck that even Big Labor knows Obamacare to be: you get name-calling. Probably because that’s all the Left has left.
In the past few days, I have challenging Obamacare-supporting classmates in Facebook threads. On the whole, the discussions have been civil, with my peers responding to critiques with argument and anecdote and keeping, by and large, a good discussion going.
Some have noted that insurance costs were escalating even before a Democratic Congress passed Obamacare — and have addressed how the president’s plan would help fix many of the problems in the pre-2010 health care sector. Others, including yours truly, have warned about the increasing costs of the new plan. Most of the arguments are familiar to those who have been following the debate, but I thought one physician’s perspective particularly inisghtful– and so I asked his permission to quote it on this blog. The permission granted, I reproduce it exactly as offered.
Time for a physician (and patient’s) two cents: just today I received a registered letter from united healthcare/oxford that “as a result of the significant changes in the healthcare environment” I am being dropped as a Medicare advantage provider. No reason given except that somehow that will contain costs. Last week I received word from my own health insurer that they are ending my policy at the end of December (6 months early) and that they are under no obligation to help me find other coverage for my small business/ medical practice. Anecdotal? I don’t think so. I will likely be closing my practice soon despite having spent years studying , preparing, and taking excellent care of my patients. I wish everyone luck with Obamacare. So far, I am not a fan.
I do hope those following the threads on Facebook learn to recognize that both sides stand sincere in the support of — or opposition to — the president’s health care scheme.
UPDATE: In the Facebook thread wherein the physician offered the above, another participant shared this link: ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs
In all the discussions about “civility” the last few years – both in the general public discourse, and on this blog – I’ve often had to wonder what the term means, because it seems to me that leftists routinely propose things which are incivil, in and of themselves. Things of which the mere proposition is a serious threat to, or attack upon, many of their fellow citizens.
As a hypothetical example, let’s take theft. If I come up to you and I propose / threaten, most politely, to steal your livelihood, property and earnings: am I not being incivil, no matter how polite my speech is?
Now suppose I don’t propose to take the risk of thieving from you directly, but instead I propose to have the government seize your earnings on my behalf. The example is no longer hypothetical; it’s what left-liberals propose every day of the year, in every political platform.
I could also talk about speech codes (leftists suppressing speech they don’t like), late-term abortion (leftists claiming the ‘right’ to kill viable human beings), gun control (leftists trying to take self-defense away from people they don’t like), government mandates (leftists endlessly proposing to tell their fellow citizens how to live – backed by government force), etc.
Why do we not recognize, and swiftly dismiss or condemn, their incivility? Is civility more a matter of the forms and rules that people uphold when speaking, or of the inner attitude/intent toward one’s fellow citizen?
Over at PJMedia, Roger L. Simon has a piece with the catchy title “Obama Big Loser in Zimmerman Trial.” Simon writes:
By injecting himself in a minor Florida criminal case by implying Martin could be his son, the president of the United States — a onetime law lecturer, of all things — disgraced himself and his office, made a mockery of our legal system and exacerbated racial tensions in our country, making them worse than they have been in years. This is the work of a reactionary, someone who consciously/unconsciously wants to push our nation back to the 1950s.It is also the work of a narcissist who thinks of himself first, of his image, not of black, white or any other kind of people. It’s no accident that race relations in our country have gone backwards during his stewardship.
It’s a clever premise, and in ideal world, it should be true, but in the world we live in, the one where Obama got re-elected, I suspect it doesn’t hurt Obama one bit.
These are just a few quick thoughts on my part, so they won’t be fully fleshed-out, but as I see it, Obama got most of what he wanted from the Zimmerman trial. Zimmerman wasn’t convicted, but as far as Obama and Holder are concerned, that only would have been the icing on their toxic cake.
As suggested in this great article by Karen McQuillan at American Thinker, Obama and Holder are masters at using race and division to advance their agenda. And when this incident occurred, Obama was showing some softening of support among black voters who were not faring well in the Obama economy. McQuillan writes:
Once the president of the United States weighed in, Zimmerman had a target on his back. An ounce of election advantage to our privileged, Ivy League president versus the ruination of a Hispanic man’s life — it was an easy choice for Obama. Obama’s great appeal to voters in 2008 was his self-presentation as a black man without animus or grievance, eager to move the country beyond divisions of all sorts — black and white, red and blue. In reality, Obama is obsessed with divisions — race, class, gender — and is expert at fueling war between us, to his political advantage.
Obama has used accusations of racism before, to rally his troops and attack his political opponents. Opposition to ObamaCare? Racist. Opposition to big government? Racist. His core liberal supporters like this stuff, and the other voters give him a pass on this, as on everything. The election analysts were predicting that even black turnout could dip in 2012. Obama moved from racial slurs on opposition groups to attacking a particular individual citizen. Zimmerman was sacrificed.
The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.
Libtards lust for power in order to control the sheeple according to their current, faddish view of “correctness.” They are prideful and lash out with the politics of personal destruction against those who stand in their way. Their wrath is both verbalized and implanted by way of insidious actions meant to undermine their opposition. They have lying tongues. They scheme and devise wicked plots. They sow discord. They plant festering mischief. They twist the context to fit their version of the truth and justify their lies. They refuse to practice circumspection and correct their errors in any sense of obedience to promoting a better solution.
In the comments for my last post on Obamacare commenter Ignatius began his discussion of the legislation’s undesirable albeit unstated aims with the observation: “I believe that political discussions would be much easier if those on the right jettisoned this quaint idea that leftists have good intentions.” I highlighted that sentence in a subsequent comment, and other commenters took up the theme, as well.
While reading the comments about “the left,” it suddenly occurred to me that after listening to Rush Limbaugh for 25 years, he has always been careful to separate “the left” politicians in D.C. from “the left” common everyday folk. I always agreed with him but now I’m not so sure. Most of the gay male liberals that I know fall right in line with the D.C. politicians. Anything and everything is o.k. if it hurts [conservatism] or wins them a battle against the right, whether or not their action is legal or ethical. The ends always justify the means.
Likewise, commenter Steve linked to this video of Ann Coulter discussing the tendency of liberals and the lamestream media to fall back on “racial demagoguery” to advance their agenda in cases like the Zimmerman trial.
I thought of all three comments when I came across another link to an article by John Hawkins dated March 27, 2012. Hawkins’ article is entitled “5 Uncomfortable Truths About Liberals,” and I encourage everyone to read the whole thing. For the moment, though, I’ve summarized his five points below. Hawkins writes that:
1) Most liberals are hateful people.
2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred.
3) Most liberals are less moral than other people.
4) Most liberals don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.
5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant.
Now while the language in those observations is strong enough that Hawkins could be accused of engaging in hyperbole, I think a certain amount of strong language is necessary for describing leftist rhetoric and means of argumentation. There’s no need to take my word for it, though, read the whole thing and decide for yourself.
I would say, though, that in both the Zimmerman case and in the debates (and protests) over late-term abortion restrictions in Texas, we’ve seen many of the traits Hawkins describes displayed quite openly by many leftists.
Likewise, consider this article in The Advocate which a Facebook acquaintance brought to my attention. The article focuses on the “mighty change of heart” which many Mormons have undergone on the issues of gay rights and gay marriage. True to what both Hawkins and our commenters noted, most gay leftists will have none of it, as is very evident from their comments on the Advocate article. Rather than welcome the changes underway in the LDS church, they are expressing their hatred and intolerance for the Mormons in very hostile language. Read the comments there and see for yourself.
Now while I know a number of our readers might believe that the Mormons brought the hatred on themselves through the church’s advocacy against Proposition 8 in California in 2008, I’d point out a few things that the left never will, namely: 1). Despite what the HRC and its allies would have us believe, opposition to gay marriage isn’t necessarily motivated by hate, however easy or convenient it may be to believe that, and 2). Individuals are and should be defined by more than their affiliation with some group or collective. The gay left is always up in arms about what this group or that group said or did about some gay issue, but they never have qualms about denouncing or smearing or insulting members of that group in a similar manner.
I find it a somewhat delicious irony that on the day the Supreme Court hands down its gay marriage decisions, a day I had planned on blogging about the debate on gay marriage. But, I had been planning that before knowing that on the actual day, I would be more focused on writing the first chapter of the second part of my epic.
I have long thought the debate on this important issue, this fundamental social institution, has long been particularly lame. And from reading my Facebook feed, see that it has become ever more so, with all too many (but fortunately not all) treating the decisions not so much as constitutional interpretation and social policy, but as personal validation — as if they needed some government body to decide the “right” way so they can feel recognized. But, that feeling of approval will fade.
That said, I have seen two statements on Facebook which do get at the meeting of the decision, from people on opposite sides of the political aisle. And I’m sure that in due course, I will discover some thoughtful blog posts and editorials. But, for now, while I have much to say about marriage, my mind is on my book. At the end of May, I finished the first draft of the first part of the book (over 150,000 words) and spent the better part of this month revising it, having intended today to print out the whole thing and take it to a printer (so I can share it with friends). (As I begin serious work on the second part.)
So, let me offer the meaningful Facebook post for your consideration. My friend Harmeet Dhillon (my predecessor as president of the U-VA Federalist Society) offered this on the standing issue which served to overturn Prop 8:
As a political law practitioner, the broader implication of today’s Prop 8 ruling is 1) a narrow interpretation of standing and 2) apparently there is no recourse by the citizens if their elected constitutional officers (here, the Attorney General) simply refuses to enforce a law passed by the majority of voters. The former is likely an artifice of the Court trying to dodge a merits decision on a very controversial issue, but the latter severely undercuts the power of the citizen-sponsored proposition in California, regardless of subject matter or what political persuasion is affected. A sobering reminder that your vote on propositions sort of matters sometimes, while your vote on who is the Attorney General matters a whole lot. And not enough of you vote!
Last week, I posted on Barbara Walters’ and Whoopie Goldberg’s bizarre defense of Bill Maher, who had apparently called out Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome child as “retarded”. A quick refresher:
Walters speculated that Maher did not know the word [ed: "retarded"] could be hurtful…
Goldberg lamely tried to assist Walters, saying “we, society took the word ‘retarded’ and made it into something derogatory…When I was a kid, it wasn’t derogatory…”
Now MN State Rep. Ryan Winkler (D/Labor Party) has called Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom.” His defense? Guess.
[from Twitter] I did not understand “Uncle Tom” as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it…
[from Winkler's weak 'apology' statement] I was very disappointed today in the Supreme Court decision…In expressing that disappointment on twitter, I hastily used a loaded term…
I see a trend!
Now, let’s be clear. Winkler didn’t use “a loaded term”, he used a racial slur.
Just because Barack Obama won the 2012 election, in large part, by dishonestly portraying Mitt Romney as a cold, uncaring, out-of-touch plutocrat does not mean our readers have grounds to level similar personal charges against our (and their) critics.
And please do not make assumptions about my left-of-center friends.
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, take issue with the arguments they raise, but do not level personal attacks on the individual making them. You don’t know that person. You don’t know why he has made the case that he has.
I do not check the comments all that regularly, but in the past few days, have received repeated reports from readers about commenters using ad hominem attacks in exchanges with their adversaries.
More on this after I’ve discussed the matter with Bruce.
Back in 2009, at the outset of the Obama administration,when a few Tea Party protestors compared the President of the United States to Adolph Hitler, the blogger Zombie, in this retrospective, reminded us how regularly liberal protestors did the same thing when George W. Bush was president. “One”, that blogger observed,
. . . would think that this would not be particularly newsworthy, but Democrats, the White House and their supporters are expressing outrage at this “horrifying” and “menacing” turn of events. (Or faux-outrage, at least.) Pundits, bloggers, media outlets and even top politicians like Nancy Pelosi are claiming that such signs are unprecedented, racist, and even that anyone who brings a swastika to a protest must be self-identifying as a Nazi (instead of accusing their opponents of being Nazis).
This all came to mind when, over the weekend, a left-of-center friend posted on Facebook that she was appalled
. . . to see a group of anti-Obama protesters with slur written signs towards our President as well as signs using the Nazi sign – I believe everyone has a right to their beliefs but the amount of disrespect towards this President is unfathomable and disgusting…what made it worse was the number of people cheering them on or honking their horns in agreement – a sad state of affairs we have reached in America…
She is right to be appalled. It is wrong to compare the President of the United States to the “Führer” of the Third Reich. That said, the amount of disrespect shown toward Mr. Obama is no less disgusting than that shown to Mr. Bush.
One only wonders why some only started speaking up against such slurs after George W. Bush left office.
We have indeed reached a sad state of affairs in America when people slur the President of the United States as do those who compare him to Hitler. But, we had reached that state of affairs long before Barack Obama took office, indeed, long before George W. Bush took office.
Let us hope that in the next Republican administration, those who today express such concerns about civil discourse will continue to do so.
Democrats and their allies in the legacy media keep telling us that the GOP is in dire straits. And I’ll grant that my party has work to do. But, I do wonder if the president’s party is not in straits even more dire than that of is political rival, its problems papered over by the strong support Barack Obama enjoys in some segments of society (especially in the various newsrooms that dot America’s coasts).
If the Democrats have such an appeal with the American people — and are so confident in their message, why must they regularly resort to dishonest demagoguery, misrepresenting Republican stands on issues and regularly calling their partisan rivals “extreme.” Bear in mind that Barack Obama did not win reelection running on his record but by demonizing Mitt Romney, airing over a quarter-billion dollars of attacks ads — before the party conventions.
Saw two examples of this yesterday on Facebook:
Ms. Gillibrand is trying to advance her own cause by misrepresenting her partisan rivals — and stirring up fears among African-Americans.
Look likes Ms. Gillibrand’s dishonest, mean-spirited rhetoric has earned her an interesting admirer: (more…)
In GP comments, we’ve seen the occasional mini-kerfuffle over someone’s references to the mentally handicapped: whether they were hurtful, or whether the critics (those claiming hurt) were just playing mind games, etc.
In that light, it’s interesting to note that beloved lefties Bill Maher, Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters all agree that it’s perfectly OK for a comedian to mock Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome child as “retarded”:
Maher mocked Palin’s special needs son by referring to him as “retarded” during a June 8 Las Vegas show…
Walters, who grew up with a special needs sister, said on June 17 on The View that she did not think Maher was “mean-spirited” when he referred to Palin’s son as “retarded.” Walters speculated that Maher did not know the word could be hurtful…even Walters’s in-studio audience was not buying this defense and was left silent…
Goldberg lamely tried to assist Walters, saying “we, society took the word ‘retarded’ and made it into something derogatory…When I was a kid, it wasn’t derogatory…” Video here.
I regret that I couldn’t find the exact original quote of Maher’s, but Walters and Goldberg clearly wanted to speak out in Maher’s favor: the camera flashed to an old family photo of Walters’ as she spoke, which means that Walters’ remarks were planned.
So, what’s the official standard? Is it still baaaaad to refer to anybody (whether mentally challenged or not) as “retarded” – with an exception for Republicans perhaps, or Sarah Palin’s children? On what grounds?
Lefties, please don’t try to say “Oh who cares, it’s only Bill Maher” – because it isn’t, now: it’s also Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan traveled to two cities where unrest has occurred and again condemned his detractors as “a handful of looters” and vandals.
In the southern city of Adana, where pro- and anti-government protesters clashed Saturday night, Erdogan greeted supporters from the top of a bus before lashing out at his opponents in the highly polarized country
If he wanted to defuse the situation, he might do well to acknowledge the protestor’s grievances rather than insult them.
Another nation’s leader said that Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey, “is one of the few foreign leaders with whom he has developed “’friendships and the bonds of trust.’”
I don’t often check the comments, so have to come to rely on readers’ e-mails to learn what is going on in this or that thread. While I do occasionally hear of a substantive (or otherwise interesting) exchange, more often than not, I learn of one commenter responding to another not with arguments but with insults.
If another’s argument is ludicrous, there is no need to engage in innuendo, just tear it apart point by point, without addressing the motivations of the commenter or making allegations about his (or her) personal life. Just last night, a concerned reader (with a political philosophy pretty close to my own) alerted me about some particularly nasty threads. With permission, I quote from this individual’s e-mail:
Social-issue threads are sometimes a hundred or more comments long. This is not because substantive debate is going on, but because they’re being hijacked by one or two loons. They tend to be laced with profanity and crude sexual innuendo. I can only imagine what straight conservatives who check out GP think. If we don’t want them to think gay conservatives have filthy minds, they’ll nonetheless get that notion if they read those threads. . . .
Nobody with any sense is going to keep commenting on a blog when they’re treated that way. I have better things to do with my time, and as many former commenters have simply gone away, it’s evident that they do, too. GP has become an important source of information for many people. I hate to see this happen.
Look, I know that life is not easy. And we each face our own challenges. Sometimes in the face of frustration as we struggle with setbacks, we need, well, we feel that we need to vent. A lot of people seem to do that in the political sphere, projecting their personal demons onto their ideological adversaries. (more…)
That title, as the eagle-eyed will notice, is the GayPatriot blog’s tagline.
In my years of participating in GP threads, I’ve noticed that some who are opposed to the blog or its usual viewpoint, may be excessively fond of the “consistency game”, demanding that anyone who would criticize them must first meet some standard of consistency that has been issued by themselves.
It’s a cute game. They declare the standards and they appoint themselves the judges – which means they can’t be criticized in the thread, because they will never judge their critic as having been consistent enough, and will always change the subject back to their critic’s alleged inconsistency.
I called it “cute”, because little kids do it to their parents (or try to). But the game’s effects, and likely its intent, are destructive.
What I’m really talking about here is Alinsky Rule 4, as heliotrope and NDT have pointed out to me before. Played skillfully enough, it can strangle a thread, destroying any useful process of conversation. (more…)
“Pick any issue currently being advanced by progressives“, writes Doug Manwaring today in the American Thinker:
. . . same-sex marriage, state-mandated free contraception, abortion, man-made global warming and strict gun control, to name a few. Publicly question or resist any of these and be prepared to be judged as an anti-science, homophobic, misogynist, racist, xenophobic, Neanderthal.
As with little Anthony, to attempt to enter into legitimate discussion or debate on these issues is out of the question, and met with severe consequences. Your have only two options: Start thinking “happy thoughts,” or brace yourself for the cornfield.
Read the whole thing. H/t: reader Heliotrope. Manwaring cites an episode of the Twilight Zone where little Anthony Freeman with his special powers will banish you to the cornfield if you don’t think “happy thoughts” or “say happy things.”
Even if we don’t agree with Manwaring on gay marriage (he’s gay, but believes ” the definition of Marriage is immutable”), we can at least recognize that instead of addressing the arguments of their critics, all too many gay marriage advocates resort to name-calling and ostracism of individuals who oppose their cause.
How often do they accuse such opponents of hatred? (More on this topic as time allows.)