Sunday, May 26, 2013
Liberalism: An ideology of rage and hate
One thing has become crystal clear in the last few days; Liberalism is an ideology of hate.
After the Tucson shootings that left Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords fighting for her life, liberals twisted themselves into pretzels trying to convince Americans that “rhetoric” from conservatives was the culprit.
Almost immediately after the shootings, liberals blamed Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and cross-hairs.
At a memorial that looked more like a campaign rally, President Obama said Americans should “…listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together…”
Nevertheless, hardcore leftists continued their hate speech against conservatives.
Since the beginning of the Wisconsin Insurrection, Americans have seen the insane rage of the left, and it has not been pretty. Consider the following examples:
A Massachusetts Democrat – an elected official, no less – encouraged union activists to “get bloody when necessary.”
Another elected Democrat compared Governor Scott Walker to a dictator.
Left wing bloggers and media personalities got into the act as well. Liberal hate-talker Mike Papantonio complained elderly Tea Party activists weren’t dying fast enough.
A blogger writing for the radical left wing site Daily Kos compared the Governor to a southern slave holder.
Signs carried by union activists showed crosshairs superimposed on Gov. Walker’s face. Remember the furor over crosshairs used by Sarah Palin’s political action committee? We were supposed to believe the very presence of the graphic was enough to send people into uncontrolled fits of rage – perhaps enough to make them grab a gun and kill people. But nothing was said about the use of the crosshair on Governor Scott Walker.
The result of all this hate? Some took to the social networking site Twitter to call for the assassination of Governor Scott Walker.
Tabitha Hale, a young 5 foot 1 inch female employee of FreedomWorks, was assaulted by a union thug in Washington, D.C. Another union thug threatened a Rhode Island cameraman with homosexual rape in very graphic terms.
A Tea Party activist was attacked by an unhinged union thug at a protest in Sacramento.
Breitbart.tv has video of a union activist claiming New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is a terrorist who would shoot workers. But yet, the Tea Party is called violent and racist.
Politico reports that the attacks and threats against Walker did not go unnoticed by fellow Republican Mitch Daniels: “This whole thing with bulls-eyes, people talking about assassinations — the hate speech here is really being directed at [Walker],” Daniels said.
In a recent column, Michelle Malkin documents what she calls the “vulgar, racist, sexist, homophobic rage of the Left.” Malkin explains:
"Yes, the tea party movement is responsible — for sending these liberal goons into an insane rage, that is. After enduring two years of false smears as sexist, racist, homophobic barbarians, it is grassroots conservatives and taxpayer advocates who have been ceaselessly subjected to rhetorical projectile vomit. It is Obama’s rank-and-file “community organizers” on the streets fomenting the hate against their political enemies. Not the other way around.
Those of us who follow current political events from a conservative point of view are not really surprised by the level of vitriol from the left – we have seen it for years. But lately, it seems the more radical left has gone completely berserk, openly calling for violence and revolution.
While interviewing liberal cartoonist Ted Rall shortly after the November election, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan said: "Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution?" Ratigan asked. "The answer obviously is yes," he added, and "the only question is how to do it."
Liberals like to say they want “dialogue” and “civil rhetoric” but they show time and again they are incapable of civil dialogue. For them, bipartisanship means you must agree with them. If you don’t, you’re labeled a racist, homophobic bigot, or worse.
It is only a matter of time before one of these unhinged lunatics pulls a gun and commits a crime similar to the Tucson massacre.
Until liberals practice what they preach, they have absolutely no credibility on the issue of rhetoric.
Success in others makes Leftists BOIL
by Jeff Jacoby
BROADCASTING FROM BOSTON the day after the Marathon bombing, a correspondent for the French-Canadian TV channel LCN explained why Americans shouldn't be surprised when such atrocities occurred. It's the price they have to pay for being a superpower, Richard Latendresse told his viewers. It may be "un peu tragique," he conceded. But hey, that's what happens when a nation takes so much pride in its military power – and has inflicted similar suffering on others.
Writing in The Guardian the same day, Glenn Greenwald noted that so far there was "virtually no known evidence regarding who did it or why." Yet one paragraph later, he was railing against "attacks that the US perpetrates rather than suffers" and calling the bombings "exactly the kinds of horrific, civilian-slaughtering attacks that the US has been bringing to countries in the Muslim world over and over and over."
Then there was Richard Falk, a UN human rights investigator and professor emeritus at Princeton, who attributed the bloody mayhem in Copley Square to "our geopolitical fantasy of global domination." The marathon bombings, Falk suggested in an article for Foreign Policy Journal, were a fitting "retribution" for US actions abroad. He pointedly quoted poet W. H. Auden's "haunting" line: "Those to whom evil is done/do evil in return."
Truly, there is something grotesque about people whose first instinct after something as awful as the Patriots Day terror attack is to parade their moral superiority by indicting America's culture, society, or foreign policy. Yet there never seems to be a shortage of such paraders, particularly in academia, the media, and the arts. Back in 2001, The New Republic ran a feature in the weeks following 9/11 called "Idiocy Watch," in which it catalogued the barrage of bitter and fatuous comments being made about the attacks by well-known intellectuals for whom ideology apparently trumped everything, decency included.
"We in America are convinced that it was blind, mad fanatics who didn't know what they were doing," said Norman Mailer, to cite just one of many examples. "But what if those perpetrators were right and we were not?"
To reread those words 11 years later is to be disgusted all over again that one of the nation's leading literary figures could have proposed that Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda hijackers were "right" to plan and carry out their ghastly slaughter. On the one-month anniversary of the Marathon bombings, the suggestion that four people died and scores were maimed because of America's global iniquity is no less revolting.
Norman Mailer thought the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for 9/11 deserved the benefit of the doubt: "What if those perpetrators were right and we were not?"
Yet that didn't inhibit London's former mayor Ken Livingstone, who went on Iran's English-language TV channel to explain that the terrorists detonated those pressure-cooker bombs because "people get incredibly angry about injustices" such as "the torture at Guantanamo Bay" and "lash out." It didn't stop Mark LeVine, a University of California history professor, from advising Americans "to admit that as a society they produce an incredible amount of violence," which in turn "helps produce people like the Columbine, Newtown or Boston murderers." It didn't deter former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who wrote a blog post headlined "US leaders' fingerprints are on the detonators," since it is "blatantly obvious" that what motivated the terrorists was American policy in the Middle East.
There have always been Westerners quick to see the United States as culpable or contemptible in every crisis – the urge to "blame America first" was well known long before Jeane Kirkpatrick excoriated it in a famous speech in 1984. In the abstract, of course, there is nothing wrong with thoughtful self-criticism. For both individuals and societies, it is a mark of health to be able to look inward and acknowledge fault; no society can progress if it cannot be honest about its shortcomings.
But it is no part of constructive self-criticism to make excuses for those who commit acts of terrorism, or to explain why their victims, as citizens of the United States, had it coming. You don't demonstrate sensitivity to other cultures by treating willful savagery against ours as something less than savagery. Terrorism is never justified. Perpetrators are not victims.
In the wake of a bloody atrocity like the one in Boston last month, the first duty of civilized people – regardless of politics or ideology -- is not to start asking why the evildoers hate us, or how they became so angry.
It is to call their actions evil, and denounce them without equivocation.
How JFK secretly ADMIRED Hitler
Interesting that the press never mentioned this when Kennedy was running for President
A new book out in Germany reveals how President Kennedy was a secret admirer of the Nazis.
President Kennedy's travelogues and letters chronicling his wanderings through Germany before WWII, when Adolf Hitler was in power, have been unearthed and show him generally in favour of the movement that was to plunge the world into the greatest war in history
'Fascism?' wrote the youthful president-to-be in one. 'The right thing for Germany.' In another; 'What are the evils of fascism compared to communism?'
And on August 21, 1937 - two years before the war that would claim 50 million lives broke out - he wrote: 'The Germans really are too good - therefore people have ganged up on them to protect themselves.'
And in a line which seems directly plugged into the racial superiority line plugged by the Third Reich he wrote after travelling through the Rhineland: 'The Nordic races certainly seem to be superior to the Romans.'
Other musings concern how great the autobahns were - 'the best roads in the world' - and how, having visited Hitler's Bavarian holiday home in Berchtesgaden and the tea house built on top of the mountain for him.
He declared; 'Who has visited these two places can easily imagine how Hitler will emerge from the hatred currently surrounding him to emerge in a few years as one of the most important personalities that ever lived.'
Kennedy's admiration for Nazi Germany is revealed in a book entitled 'John F. Kennedy - Among the Germans. Travel diaries and letters 1937-1945.'
But his praise was not entirely without caveats. 'It is evident that the Germans were scary for him,' said Spiegel magazine in Berlin.
In the diaries of the three trips he made to prewar Germany he also recognised; 'Hitler seems to be as popular here as Mussolini in Germany, although propaganda is probably his most powerful weapon.'
Observers say his writings ranged between aversion and attraction for Germany.
The book also contains his impressions when walking through a shattered Berlin after the war: 'An overwhelming stench of bodies - sweet and nauseating'.
And of the recently deceased Fuehrer he said; 'His boundless ambition for his country made him a threat to peace in the world, but he had something mysterious about him. He was the stuff of legends.'
The book editor's believe that he was 'eerily fascinated' by fascism.
After you read this kid's story, you'll think twice about what you post on Facebook. (And that's the problem.)
Meet Cameron D'Ambrosio. He's 18 and lives in a small town outside Boston. He wants to be a rapper and calls himself "Cammy Dee" in his YouTube videos.
Oh, and he's been locked up without bail for weeks -- facing terrorism charges and 20 years in prison -- all for something he posted on Facebook.
On May 1st, Cam was skipping school and messing around online. He posted some lyrics that included a vague reference to the Boston Marathon Bombing and called the Whitehouse a "federal house of horror." Shortly after that he was arrested and charged with Communicating a Terrorist Threat, a felony that carries 20 years in prison.
The post contained no specific threat of violence against any person or group of people, and in the context of the rest of the lyrics and Cams' rap persona, it was clearly nothing more than a metaphor. A search of Cam's house found NO evidence that he was planning any violence, but a judge still ordered him held without bail for the next 3 months, pending trial.
For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated) and Coral reef compendium. (Updated as news items come in). GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten.
List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Pictorial) or here (Personal)
Posted by JR at 12:36 AM