chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
From MRC

■ “I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” — Left-wing radio host Mike Malloy on the January 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show, talking about Rush Limbaugh going to the hospital after suffering chest pains.

■ MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in 2009 fantasized about the death of Rush Limbaugh: “Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp”

■ Author/humorist P.J. O’Rourke: “It’s the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy-”
Host Bill Maher: “You mean Rush Limbaugh and Sean-”
O’Rourke: “-from the moment the fat guy refused to share his drugs....”
Maher: “You mean the OxyContin that he was on?...Why couldn’t he have croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?” — HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, February 8, 2008.

MSNBC’s Amy Robach in 2006 mildly wondered if “Death of a President” movie depicting the imagined assassination of President Bush was “poor taste or, as some say, thought-provoking?”

■ On his radio show in 2009, Ed Schultz wished for Dick Cheney’s death: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country … Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?”

■ Also on his radio show, in 2010, Schultz shouted: “Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!

■ Then-Air America host Montel Williams in 2009 urged Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to kill herself: “Slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to – or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

■ Writing on the Huffington Post in 2007, radio host Charles Karel Bouley mocked: “I hear about Tony Snow and I say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you? Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?”

“I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Host Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, March 2, 2007, discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed.

■ “Earlier today, a rental truck carried a half a million ballots from Palm Beach to the Florida Supreme Court there in Tallahassee. CNN had live helicopter coverage from the truck making its way up the Florida highway, and for a few brief moments, America held the hope that O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris.”Bill Maher on ABC’s Politically Incorrect, November 30, 2000.

■ Host Tina Gulland: “I don’t think I have any Jesse Helms defenders here. Nina?”
NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “Not me. I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” — Exchange on the July 8, 1995 Inside Washington, after Helms said the government spends too much on AIDS.

“I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease....He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” — USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
I initially had re-posted this entry in its entirety, but its length and large number of images and videos demonstrating the dangerous rhetoric and actions of the American Left was simply too much for this blog to handle. Therefore I ask you to click the link to learn which side of the aisle is most dangerous:

The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010



chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
OK, I have waited a few days to see what the fallout was going to be. But I can't hold back anymore. Let us look at the facts. A deranged young man went on a shooting rampage at a Safeway near Tucson, Arizona. He managed to kill six, including a nine year old and a federal judge, and wound 14 others. Apparently he targeted the Congresswoman  who was holding a town hall at the store. What is not for certain was whether or not he had a reason to kill her specifically or if he chose her because of her high profile (resulting in more media coverage).

No matter his reasons, one thing is clear: Jared Loughner is a completely insane nutbag. And, in all honesty, that is all that should matter. I could care less what his politics are compared to hers. He is crazy. Look at some of his YouTube videos and a link to a story about his home and college life:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10
Killer's Weirdness

He is a nutball who thinks the government controls people via grammar structure, he revels in the idea of conscious dreams and his favorite books include "The Communist Manifesto."

NUTBALL! That's it. End of story, right? WRONG! Because his politics include distrust of the government, the Left and the media are claiming he is a Tea Party Republican. Two points...

One, where is the evidence of this? Have the media forgotten that BOTH the Left and Right have fringes who hate the government? On the Right are militias. On the Left are Anarchists. They BOTH exist. They are BOTH a little nutter. But exam time... When was the last time you caught a person on the Right with a copy of "The Communist Manifesto?" Better yet, when have you heard of someone on the Right naming it one of their favorite books? It doesn't happen. Anarchists? Yep. The fringe Left? Yep. But not on the Right. Still, the rush to blame the right is telling (more to follow).

Two, who cares? Seriously. Who cares what the politics of loons may be? I don't. A crazy person is a crazy person. Why must we always have to dig into the back story? Why must we assign blame to anyone or any part of society when it is the actions of THE IDIOT WHO WENT ON A RAMPAGE?

Ah! That's the real issue behind this tragedy.

The VERY NIGHT of the shooting, the sheriff of Pima County went out of his way to say the shooting was political and lay blame at the feet of "vitriol" in political discourse. He continued by blaming "radio and TV" hosts who fan flames of political anger. Earlier that day, CNN and MSNBC both had guest after guest after guest who blamed the American Right and the Tea Party. CNN actually invited a liberal cartoonist on to bash conservatives and say this was all their fault. FEW took the time to blame the idiot shooting up a Safeway.

Wait a minute! The last time I checked, I have control over my actions. No one one the Left or Right will influence me in a manner to kill or maim. That is pure idiocy. Even if I were a complete shell of a human who was on the verge of snapping, there is no way this is true. It's any easy way to place blame. But that's all it is. A way to blame people we do not agree with.

How about this? We agree to blame the idiot who committed a crime and leave it at that? But, again, no. The Left and the media want blood. They are hopping mad that the Right is on to them. And they are going to use this tragedy to "target" the American Right. 

Look at what has already happened. Within minutes of the shooting, the Left began passing around the link to Sarah Palin's "target" list from the 2010 election that crosshaired Democratic Congressmen and women who voted for ObamaCare but whose districts voted for McCain on 2008.

THAT MUST BE A COMMAND TO KILL!

But why is the Left not trotting out their own commands to kill? 

This is an image from the Lefty website, DailyKos, and the DNC:



Hmm... Look at that. Bullseye targets on Congressional districts. Using the Left's own strategies, I guess Markos Moulitsas is guilty of incitement. But that is just stupid. But didn't Palin use that targeting list over and over again. Yep. And so did Moulitsas and the DNC:

Link to Bulleye info
More Targeting Info

But wait! Doesn't the Tea Party and those mean, mean, mean people at Fox and the conservative radio stations want the Left to literally die? Nope. I've never heard of that. You hear that all the time from the Left:
NPR host wants conservative Senator's grandchildren to get AIDS and die
Just Google any MSNBC host and death to (fill in the blank)

But are there not some fringe Right sites that call for violence? Yep. And those sited are for loons. The same thing is true on the Left. They Left has just as many fringe sites that call for violence as well. But, oddly, there is this DailyKos page that was scrubbed over the weekend:
MY CONGRESSWOMAN IS DEAD TO ME (links to site with cache and commentary of the deleted DailyKos page)

The problem is this: The Left and Right have nutballs. They do exist. And when they act like fools or kill people we should all call it like it is: A tragedy committed by a NUTBAG IDIOT.

But that is not enough this time. The Left and the media are, like I said earlier, out for blood.

The sheriff wonders if free speech is a good thing.
The Brits are already laying blame at the American Right.

The American Left already proposes curbing free speech by Congressional action.

Hillary Clinton calls him a political "extremist."


It's a coordinated, vicious attack on the Right. A loon goes nuts (likely a loon with Leftist tendencies) and the world stops spinning. Seriously? I think people should be allowed to yell and scream anything (except REAL threats) at Congress and the President. Heck, under Bush people could without repercussion. Years of Code Pink vitriol. Even a movie about Bush's "assassination." But no one said the Left was out of control. No one thought there needed to be legislation against speech that is not agreeable.

And the media? The media is the worst offender. This morning every major channel has lead with people speculating as to the NUTBAG's desires and political interest. Not people that knew him, mind you, people speculating.

Remember when that woman went NUTTERS and shot three at the University of Alabama? Everyone urged caution when her background revealed she was "obsessed" with Barack Obama and "took to heart" when he said "...If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

Remember when a NUTTER went crazy and killed 13 at Fort Hood? The media "urged caution" when reports of a Muslim man yelling "Allah Akbar" was the shooter, instead focusing for more than an hour or two that  there was "a likelihood" the reports of a Muslim involved were "overstated, exaggerated or worse" and the shooting was "more likely" a crazed member of the Army. (In fact, it was a NUTTY Muslim angry with the US.)

Remember when a NUTTER tried to set off a bomb in Times Square? New York's Mayor Bloomberg speculated the Right tried to commit the act because of their desire to defeat Obamacare even though it was a crazy wanna be terrorist.

Remember when a NUTTER took over the Discovery Channel HQ? Remember the NUTTER Pentagon shooter? Remember the NUTTER who flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin? All these people turned out to be Leftists, but their acts were speculated by the media to be the acts of the Right.

It is interesting the Left and the media are doing the same thing. Democrats are jumping at every chance to get on TV to say "we need to turn down the rhetoric." As if these people are innocent! Both sides straddle the line of talk and action. But THAT'S THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE.

It is only NUTTERS that cross that line. The Left, as shown above, have plenty. The Right does as well. But instead of scoring political points, why can't the sides come together and grieve for our losses and pray for the  victims? Instead of rushing to lay blame and cap free speech because of the acts of a NUTBALL, why can't we come together and see that 1 idiot did something wrong while 310 MILLION did not?

I find it despicable this is not happening. Let's remember those who are gone and stop this mindless speculation and blame game. It is not fair to the Right, the Left , this country nor the victims.

RIP 
Christina Taylor Green
Dorothy Morris
John Roll
Phyllis Scheck
Dorwan Stoddard
Gabriel "Gabe" Zimmerman

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)

When bureaucrats talk about increasing your “access” to X, Y, or Z, what they’re really talking about is increasing their control over your lives exponentially. As it is with the government health care takeover, so it is with the newly-approved government plan to “increase” Internet “access.” Call it Webcare.

By a vote of 3-2, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday adopted a controversial scheme to ensure “net neutrality” by turning unaccountable Democrat appointees into meddling online traffic cops. The panel will devise convoluted rules governing Internet service providers, bandwidth use, content, prices, and even disclosure details on Internet speeds. The “neutrality” is brazenly undermined by preferential treatment toward wireless broadband networks. Moreover, the FCC’s scheme is widely opposed by Congress – and has already been rejected once in the courts. Demonized industry critics have warned that the regulations will stifle innovation and result in less access, not more.

Sound familiar?

The parallels with health care are striking. The architects of Obamacare promised to provide Americans more access to health insurance – and cast their agenda as a fundamental universal entitlement. In fact, it was a pretext for creating a gargantuan federal bureaucracy with the power to tax, redistribute, and regulate
the private health insurance market to death – and replace it with a centrally-planned government system overseen by politically-driven code enforcers dictating everything from annual coverage limits, to administrative expenditures, to the make-up of the medical workforce. The costly, onerous, and selectively-applied law has resulted in less access, not more.

Undaunted promoters of Obama FCC chairman Julius Genachowski’s “open Internet” plan to expand regulatory authority over the Internet have couched their online power grab in the rhetoric of civil rights. On Monday, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps proclaimed: “Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right…[though] not many people have talked about it that way.” Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. Cunning propaganda, that.

“Broadband is becoming a basic necessity,” civil rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and Number Three House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every “nappy-headed child” in America, but essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, “deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is.”

Calling them “nappy-headed” is a rather questionable way of boosting their pride, but never mind that.

Face it: A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell phone service or a Netflix account. Increasing competition and restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads. Once again, Democrats are using children as human shields who provide useful cover for not-so-noble political goals.

The “net neutrality” mob – funded by billionaire George Soros and other left-wing think tanks and non-profits — has openly advertised its radical, speech-squelching agenda to crusade for “media justice.” Social justice is the redistribution of wealth and economic “rights.” Media justice is the redistribution of speech and First Amendment rights. The meetings of the universal broadband set are littered with Marxist-tinged rants about “disenfranchisement” and “empowerment.” They’ve targeted conservative opponents on talk radio, cable TV, and on the web as purveyors of “hate” who need to be managed or censored. Democrat FCC panelists’ have dutifully echoed their concerns about concentration of corporate media power. As the Ford Foundation-funded Media Justice Fund, which lobbied for universal broadband, put it: This is a movement “grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.”

For progressives who cloak their ambitions in the mantle of “fairness,” it’s all about control. It’s always about control.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
Liberals = Believe government should act as a Big Brother
Tea Party = Believes in responsibility for one's self.

Liberals = Believe the government creates jobs
Tea Party = Believes the private-sector creates jobs

Liberals = Exploit minorities by the use of the false-racism card
Tea Party = Does not  care what one looks like; just does not want others to run our lives

Liberals = Believe in the ideology of progressivism, socialism, marxism and fascism
Tea Party = Believes in pure capitalism (where "good" prospers and "bad" falters))

Liberals = Cherishes how government tells you what to do and what to buy
Tea Party =  Desires a limited government who is there to assist if you need it (for a limited duration with stipulations)

Liberals = Believe the public needs to be led like children (and expects the public to act like children)
Tea Party = Believes everyone should act like adults

Liberals = Is led by an elitist core who think they know what is better for you
Tea Party = Is led by everyday people who want to be left alone

Liberals = Believes minority groups should be labeled such as African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc.
Tea Party = Believes we are all Americans and should not be separated by politicians

Liberals = Believe illegal immigrants and other undocumented workers should be made citizens
Tea Party = Believes "ILLEGAL" immigrants should be deported and the border secure

Liberals = Believe Americans should use European laws in American courts
Tea Party = Believes the Founding documents and US Code are the extent to American law
chrisbrad: (Argument)
Obama is the shepherd I did not want.
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my faith in conservative policies.
He guideth me in the path of unemployment for his party's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
I shall fear no hunger, for his bailouts are with me.
He has anointed my income with taxes,
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will live in a mortgaged home forever.
chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)

To mark Labor Day 2010, President Obama will join hands with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in Milwaukee and pose as champions of the working class. Bad move. Trumka’s organizing record is a shameful reminder of the union movement’s violent and corrupt foundations.

The new Obama/AFL-CIO power alliance — underwritten with $40 million in hard-earned worker dues — is a midterm shotgun marriage of Beltway brass knuckles and Big Labor brawn. Trumka warmed up his rhetorical muscles this past week with full-frontal attacks on former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. He indignantly accused her of “getting close to calling for violence” and suggested that her criticism of Tea Party-bashing labor bosses amounted to “terrorizing” workers.

Trumka and Obama will cast Big Labor as an unassailable force for good in American history. But when it comes to terrorizing workers, Trumka knows whereof he speaks.

Meet Eddie York. He was a workingman whose story will never scroll across Obama’s teleprompter. A nonunion contractor who operated heavy equipment, York was shot to death during a strike called by the United Mine Workers 17 years ago. Workmates who tried to come to his rescue were beaten in an ensuing melee. The head of the UMW spearheading the wave of strikes at that time? Richard Trumka. Responding to concerns about violence, he shrugged to the Virginian-Pilot in September 1993: “I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned.” Incendiary rhetoric, anyone?

A federal jury convicted one of Trumka’s UMW captains on conspiracy and weapons charges in York’s death. According to the Washington, D.C.-based National Legal and Policy Center, which tracks Big Labor abuse, Trumka’s legal team quickly settled a $27 million wrongful death suit filed by York’s widow just days after a judge admitted evidence in the criminal trial. An investigative report by Reader’s Digest disclosed that Trumka “did not publicly discipline or reprimand a single striker present when York was killed. In fact, all eight were helped out financially by the local.”

In Illinois, Trumka told UMW members to “kick the s**t out of every last” worker who crossed his picket lines, according to the Nashville (Ill.) News. And as the National Right to Work Foundation (pdf), the leading anti-forced unionism organization in the country, pointed out, other UMW coalfield strikes resulted in what one judge determined were “violent activities … organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.”

Trumka washed off the figurative bloodstains and moved up the ranks. As AFL-CIO secretary, he notoriously refused to testify in a sordid 1999 embezzlement trial involving his labor boss brethren at the Teamsters Union. No surprise. Thugs of a feather: Trumka’s violence-promoting record echoes the riotous Teamsters strikes dating back to the 1950s, when the union organized taxicab companies to target workers with gas bombs, bottles and fists.

And now, Trumka is spearheading a Democratic Party get-out-the-vote campaign by far-left groups — publicized in the revolutionary Marxist People’s World — to “energize an army of tens of thousands who will return to their neighborhoods, churches, schools and voting booths to prevent a Republican takeover of Congress in November and begin building a new permanent coalition to fight for a progressive agenda.”

Take those as literal fighting words. The bloody consequences of compulsory unionism cannot be ignored.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
Seriously... This may be the best ad I have ever seen.




chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
If a community organizer can be President, why not a talk show host? Heck, Herman Cain has 100 times the intellect and understanding of this nation.

Watch, and be amazed:




chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
Seriously... Liberal journalists and activists want the government to shutter Fox News. Also in the link, NPR honchos wish for Rush Limbaugh's death. Sure sounds like the peace-loving and tolerance of the left!

Liberals: End Fox's Use of First Amendment

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
Yes, this clip is from Glenn Beck, but the truth is the truth...




chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
Well, friends, the Democrats have taken the first step in silencing speech. Under the guise of fighting copyright infringement, the Obama administration, Democratically-controlled Congress and liberal Justice authorities have taken down over 73,000 Wordpress blogs. Instead of targeting site with actual illegal material, these liberal hacks have used Obama's new Internet-control authority to shut down entire servers forever deleting material that even they acknowledge was legal.

Conservatives and libertarian web activists have been warning about this for months. Under the guise of criminal probes, "illegal" activity and tolerance-via-censorship, Obama and his minions have made their first foray into quelling free speech. It is very simple. They find material not to their liking, subpoena the servers the material is on, search for something that can be used as grounds for shutting down a server and cut the cord. It's the easiest way to end free speech without anyone knowing.

It's a dangerous first step, one that even the "evil" Bush and his Republican cronies refused to do. How interesting the President of  hope, change, honesty, transparency and tolerance happily orders this mess.

And it is yet another reason people need to be aware of how radical and dangerous Obama really is.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
Using their own words, it looks like a bunch of racists are running CNN and MSNBC:




chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
The folks at ABC News are confused. Democrats are passing all this awesome legislation, they posit, so why are Americans acting so hostile and looking to hand Congress to the GOP? The key problems, ABC's Z. Byron Wolf deduces, are that Democrats simply have not embraced liberalism enough and Americans have failed to perceive just how great the Democratic agenda has been.

"The imminent passage of a tough new Wall Street Reform bill," wrote Wolf, pictured right, on ABC's website, "will cap off a wildly productive two years for Democrats in Washington – they will have passed two pieces of sweeping legislation and an enormous $800 billion stimulus bill to deal with the ailing economy."

Wolf goes on to wonder why those three pieces of legislation haven't benefited Democrats' electoral prospects. Let's see: 6% of Americans believe the stimulus bill created jobs, a strong majority favors repealing the health care bill, and almost 80% of Americans polled have little or no confidence that the financial reform bill will achieve its stated objectives. Is Wolf still confused?

He goes on to write that Democrats' problems stem from the fact that they just have not embraced liberalism to a great enough degree.

"Rather than energize the electoral base that helped put Democrats in control of Congress in 2006 -- and President Obama in the White House in 2008," Wolf writes, "the accomplishments have often frustrated activists, who see compromised ideals and watered-down bills instead of legislative victories."

If this is supposed to be an explanation for Democrats' poor prospects in November, it falls well short.

First of all, the districts where Dems are vulnerable are by and large ones they picked up in 2006 and 2008 from sitting Republicans that couldn't shake the tarnished Republican name. Now that Bush is a memory, red state Dems need to court moderate Republicans, not cater to the far left.

Furthermore, the number of Americans who identify themelves as "conservative" is at its highest point since 1994, when Republicans walloped Dems in the midterm elections. Forty-nine percent of the nation believes that Democrats are too liberal, up 10 points from 2008. Only 10 percent believe they are too conservative.

A shift to the left is not going to be a winning strategy.

Wolf continues:

While Republicans  have, since President Bush left office, instituted an almost myopic, party-wide focus on spending and debt, Democrats  have struggled to rally behind their versions of health reform and Wall Street  reform. They could barely find enough votes to pass the bills. And despite millions of jobs Democrats say were created by the $862 billon stimulus bill, the unemployment rate remains high, and is not expected to come down any time soon.

"I think the public doesn't quite perceive (the accomplishments) because they don't see much change in their everyday lives. They're still having trouble finding work," said Donald Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Got it? Obama and congressional Democrats have made fantastic accomplishments, but the American people are too dumb, distracted, or removed to perceive it.

These three defenses of the Democratic Party in the face of intense public opposition -- that they have been politically successful, that they have not embraced the far-left elements of the party, and that Americans are generally unable to perceive just how awesome they are -- are tired leftist talking points.

And with liberal pundits and politicos parroting them nonstop, is it any wonder Americans are ready for some house (and Senate) cleaning?

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
I am according to the NAACP. The fine folks at that organization have voted to add the Tea Party to its list of racist organizations. Interesting, to say the least, since there has yet to be a single video or audio capture of anything racist at a Tea Party. Truthfully, this is simply a political maneuver  by the group to scare the growing minority participation in the Tea Party movement. It's sick. It's disgusting. But it's politics as usual coming from the Democratic-heavy organization.

Fun video included:




chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
A lot of those currently in charge would like for you to think that high unemployment was the fault of Republicans. But take a closer look. Unemployment under Republican Congressional control hit a high around 6% in late 2003/early 2004. But when Democrats took over Congress in 2006, unemployment skyrocketed to more than 10%. Weird...

PS. People DO remember giving the Democrats the reigns of power all those years ago, right? 



chrisbrad: Red Sox (Abandon Hope)
Five Rights the Left Doesn’t Want You to Have
by Jason Rantz (cartoon by Brett Noel)

The far left in this country—politicians, talking heads, celebrities, faux-journalists—love to claim conservatives are stamping out American freedoms. Indeed, you still hear lefties claim President George W. Bush shredded the Constitution to spy on American citizens without warrants. You frequently hear concerns that Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are practicing judicial activism and ignoring the law of the land. And you always hear complaints that talkers Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are using “hate” speech to incite violence against non-believers. 




The left loves the Constitution and freedom—but they only love it when they have the rights and can pick and choose who else gets to enjoy them. The far left in this country, at any opportunity they can, stomp on our freedoms, or simply ignore them, for what they perceive to be the greater good: political correctness, social justice, environmental activism, diversity. They seek to quash our freedoms, while utilizing them for their own purposes.

Here are five rights that the far left in America doesn’t want conservatives to have:

1. Free Speech Rights: The left loves to whine and complain about how evil Republicans are, but they sure don’t want anyone to talk back. On many issues, the left openly tries to prevent the right from speaking out. You need not look beyond what’s going on at our nation’s colleges to see how the left operates.

Often times, college campuses are overrun with Marxist professors and uninformed students who will try to stop invited conservative speakers to even open their mouth and utter a single sentence, without being interrupted, shouted down, or, in some cases, have the entire meeting be taken over by “protests.”

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the nutty pro-illegal immigration activist students prevented former Rep. Tom Tancredo from giving a speech. According to ABC News, “Tancredo didn't make it through his talk. In fact, he left campus early after protesters interrupted his speech and broke a window.” Over at University of California at Irvine, the Muslim Student Union repeatedly interrupted a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, leading to eleven arrests. Think these are rare occurrences of over-zealous students so passionate about issues they can’t control themselves? Think again. There is a systematic effort across college campuses whereby liberal student groups repeatedly try to shut down anyone from speaking on campus that they disagree with.

2. The Right to Bear Arms: The left really hates guns—especially when law-abiding citizens own them. The far left thinks people who use guns are mostly redneck, oftentimes violent, and supremely ignorant of what it takes to create a happy society. If they had their way, all guns would be banned and violence would forever cease to exist in our great country. Why, look at Chicago where a ban on handguns was on the books for nearly 30 years. They’ve had no problems—except for the rampant killings by criminals with access to guns. Other than that, the ban has worked great!

What the left doesn’t seem to get—beyond their inability to understand the 2nd Amendment—is that banning gun ownership will not stop violence. Legitimate gun owners who are law-abiding citizens don’t go out shooting people because of a drug bust gone bad, or because the gangbanger down the street looked at their girlfriend funny. Law-abiding citizens use guns for sport and for protection against the bad guys who know how to score a gun illegally and use it against the saps who have local leaders making it too difficult to legally own a weapon.

3. Voting Rights: The left would love other liberals to vote—they may not even mind if you vote a few times so long as ACORN was in on the voter registration action. What they absolutely hate, however, is when conservatives vote because they keep voting in Republicans who will prevent them from passing whatever legislation they want.
During the November elections last year, the Black Panther Party in Philadelphia made headlines for their voter intimidation tactics. Two members in paramilitary garb, holding weapons, shouted racial epithets towards potential white voters. The Justice Department under the Liberal-in-Chief dropped the charges against those involved. Please imagine what would have happened if a WASP in a camouflaged-polo shirt tried to scare away black voters. Obama would have made an example of them.

In Port Chester, N.Y., voters were allowed to vote six times so that the heavily Hispanic population would be able to elect Hispanic candidates to office. Indeed, according to the Associated Press, “Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats.… Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.” So in an effort to punish white candidates with a voting base that cares enough to show up to the polls, under the Obama Administration voters would be able to vote multiple times to guarantee that a non-white, presumably liberal candidate, would get elected. Again, please imagine what would have happened if in, say, Detroit, the Justice Department helped make it so more white Republicans would be able to represent the city.

4. Freedom of Press: The left really hates that Fox News has an audience; they loathe the existence of HUMAN EVENTS and writers like me. They actually have the nerve to call out Fox News as being “unfair” and “unbalanced” because the station’s analysts lean right. How often does MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann rant about how evil and dishonest Fox News is, all while hosting a show where he seldom, if ever, has a guest on who disagrees with him? How often did the New York Times shill for Air America radio networks, in a bid to gain them more listeners? Free press is good, so long as liberals can control the message (this is why Obama Administration officials tend to do more interviews with friendly news agencies—they’re guaranteed not to be asked tough questions and are better able to control what news gets out).  

5. The Rights of States. How often are our states shunned for trying to protect themselves against elements that are destroying their economy, their sense of safety or their sense of pride? We have Arizona under assault from the federal government because they have the gall to protect themselves from citizens entering their state illegally.

I’m hardly a state’s rights fanatic because I believe there are reasonable restrictions on what a state can or cannot do, and there is certainly a role for the federal government in overseeing some of what a state does (if my hippie state of Washington tries to ban guns or limit my speech because of some twisted state’s rights argument, I want the federal government stepping in). But, to always take the side of the federal government, the way liberals do, solely to hold on to power—power that would be kept away from conservatives who tend to overwhelmingly advocate for those rights—is petty. I know Senators Chuck Schumer or Patty Murray would love as much power as they can hold on to—because, after all, they know best—it’s just not the way the system works.

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
That's right. If you dare to tell the Vice President to lower taxes, he'll call you a "smartass." Stay classy, VP Joe.




Profile

chrisbrad: Red Sox (Default)
chrisbrad

February 2013

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 09:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios