Democrats in 2001-2008: Namecalling against your opponents is a sign of your patriotic duty to dissent!

Democrats in 2009: Namecalling is un-Amurican!

I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.

I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.

Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).

It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational. Only now, are we seeing these liberal revisionists claiming they condemned the rhetoric of their ideological cohorts during the Bush years. They're still under this delusion that each and every protester who brings a gun to an Obama event is a GOP operative. In some cases, they attribute one of their own to the Right. If this behavior is being criticized by liberals now, then it should be criticized when a Republican is targeted. But liberals are counting on the electorate to believe their lies...

Have a great day...

Democrats 2003: Dissent is patriotic!

Democrats 2009: Dissent is manufactured!

As Congress enjoys its summer recess, the details of the healthcare overhaul are being hashed out among the political class and the electorate. Passions are erupting on both sides, with many on the Right going after congressmen in, not only their districts, but others as well. On the Left, the sentiment they cherished throughout the Bush years, dissent, is being dismissed as manufactured by special interests, content with the status quo. Although throughout the buildup and the Iraqi campaign, liberals' talking points were very close to rooting for the enemy, they still had the right to dissent and disagree and those of us who critiqued their talking points made sure we stressed that fact. Unlike six years later, when Obama is pushing a healthcare bill designed to modify about 15% of the US economy, without allowing Congress time to debate it, liberals are calling the same sentiment they cherished so much during the Bush years, as "unpatriotic." Don't sit there confused, you knew it was going to happen...it should be no surprise that liberals often project their feelings on to innocent bystanders.

Throughout President Bush's term, especially after 9/11, liberals were whipped into a frenzy at the thought that he was going to take away their right to disagree. The Obamedia made sure to portray these dissenters as everyday men and women, who were upset at the way President Bush was "destroying this country." They gave them authenticity, even as evidence was uncovered that Hungarian billionaire, George Soros, was funding the entire thing. The contempt shown by the Obamedia and their friends on the Left, towards the protesters at town halls, exposes a recurring theme that has been evident since January 20, 2009, the inability to effectively use the screen to take pressure off the quarterback. One can only imagine the foaming of the mouths of liberals if the Right engaged in this type behavior.

I got the email from the White House that warned me about misinformation during the congressional recess, using one of the president's favorite plays, the strawman. A portion of the email said, "...[o]ver the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high..." I've said it before, and I'll say it again, no one...and I mean NO ONE, is perpetuating the status quo...at least in the United States. The thought that people who are not only satisfied with their care, are open to reform, but believe that this bill will degrade their care, is not perpetuating the status quo. They don't want what the government is selling right now, especially after Barry-O wanted very little debate on the bills, which currently sit in Congress...and after it was clear the president was talking out of his ass.

Debra Saunders from the San Francisco Chronicle, notes how one Senator, who isn't ashamed at reminding people who she is, went after former Secretary of State Condi Rice for not having any children serving in the Iraqi Conflict, and dismissed criticism of her remarks as "speaking truth to power." Fast forward to 2009, the same senator feels uncomfortable when others "speak truth to power." Even Speaker Mimi has joined the chorus of Democrats, who are being reminded of who their employers are, who claim these protests are not authentic, calling it "astroturfing," (leaving the rest of us wondering "what the hell is in the water in California?). Obviously, these people need to be reminded that this nation was founded on protests that were "organized."

Anti-war protesters beat their chests to show their bravado, and proclaimed they had no fear of BushCo. Their bravery led to some of the most irresponsible rhetoric we've heard from them, and their friends in Congress (I'm sure we all remember Pete Stark's famous speech...and the support it got among the nutroots.). In an op-ed for USA Today, Speaker Mimi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, call out the hanging of effigies, the tombstones, and shouting down members of Congress as "unpatriotic," and "un-American" (funny how none of this mattered when it happened to President Bush and Republican members of Congress...). Paul Krugman claims that no one hounded Republican congressmen during President Bush's push for Social Security privatization in 2005, and Jon Henke wants to remind you how wrong Krugman is.

Jake Tapper of ABC News, reports that the hated Congressional Budget Office has released a report that will continue to absurdify (I made a word!) the rhetoric coming from the White House about ObamaCare cutting costs. The response from Democrats in Congress and at the White House was predictable, upset the CBO never gives their proposals any credit. Liberals continue to berate ObamaCare opponents, but they never say a word about its proposed costs, and the fact that the president didn't want debate on this legislation...kinda like Porkulus, which still hasn't worked.

They're continuing to show nervousness as the underbelly of their agenda is exposed...

Have a great day...

Liberals: Did you know The Joker was racist?

Dr. Asten: Is that why all his victims were white?

I received an email from the White House a week ago telling me to be on guard against the misstatements surrounding ObamaCare during Congress' August recess. I was peeved that the White House has yet to give me a response to the issue I initially emailed them about (Gays in Iraq), and that they had the gall to send me this shit. Anyway, liberals are pissed off at a new photo of President Obama being photoshopped to look like the late Heath Ledger's rendition of the Batman villain, The Joker. The newsrag, LA Weekly laments that the Joker's garb never included a noose (awww...trying to go for "racism" for the win...). Does anyone else get the impression that ObamAid drinkers will go to great lengths to paint any criticism of Obamessiah as racist?

In my mind, this is different from my defense of President Bush during his administration. I, and other pro-Bushites, were defending him from incessant liberal attacks, comparing him to Hitler, Mussolini, and other over the top machinations. When conservatives answered and rebuffed the many hyperbolic comments of liberals, people like Secretary of State Clinton squawked the following:

“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’”

I guess liberals remain confused in their worldview. This is not King Louis XVI's France or Charles I's England, where dissent was treated as a threat against the state. Or, they may be confused about what actual protests are, instead of bitching for the hell of it. I think it has less to do with griping and complaining about a photoshop of Obama, as was evidenced throughout Bush's years as president, as history has shown (Oh lookie, President Bush also has a picture of him as Heath Ledger's Joker, do liberals think that's racist too?), and more to do with liberals' frustrations over their inability to effectively defend Obama's agenda, as we saw with Behar's moral equivalence to the Bush Administration on yesterday's episode of The Spew.

Media Matters (on occasion) had the gall to try and convince people not to believe their lying eyes when a photo of Obama standing in front of Professor Gates, who was being helped by Sgt. Crowley, by pointing to Obama's bow to Saudi King Abdullah earlier this year. The Media Matters post has now disappeared down the cyber memory hole, to cover up their embarrassment. You can tell a person's character by the way they treat their mothers, and old people. The photo, which is below, tells you all you need to know.

Bill Sammon tells a story in Strategery about a time when President Bush went to Chile and one of his Secret Service agents was caught behind the Chilean detail. The president reached through the detail to bring his Secret Service agent closer to him. John Kerry, on the other hand, during a ski trip during the campaign of 2004, blamed an accident he had on his Secret Service agent. There is also a photo of President Bush helping an ailing Robert Byrd, I presume after Senator Byrd referred to the Vick dogfighting saga as "barbaric."

Now to the photos...





You be the judge...

Have a great day...

Obama: Don't disturb me while I play my fiddle...

...pour some more of that ObamAid for people to drink!

The conversation I had with my brother got me thinking. Obama supporters leap over obstacles to play moral equivalence to problems during the Bush Years. In a segment on The Spew, Michelle Malkin had to field questions from the resident dingbat, Joy Behar, who still believes President Bush still sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. While the rest of the nation is in reality, people like Behar, and my brother, believe we have to "get the pus out," even though most of that was done by not only Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, et al. It's like an ex-girlfriend who's already gotten what she wanted and more from her ex-boyfriend, but still isn't satisfied.

Let me just call it for what it is. It's a rhetorical dodge from the issues surrounding Obama and Democrats' increase of the federal deficit. The Left tried their damndest to marginalize the Tea Parties that broke out on Tax Day and throughout Independence Day weekend, calling them every name in the book, but these movements against Obama's desire to nationalize the private sector are taking hold. I would caution Obama acolytes, like my brother, to read the political tea leaves and, for once, side with tax payers instead of the emanations coming from the White House. One example is the president's desire to shove ObamaCare on the electorate before Congress' August recess, despite the electorate being largely opposed to it. Ed Morrissey has a few videos of Democratic congressmen who've faced fierce opposition from constituents in their districts, to several provisions in the healthcare bill.

At least the electorate is becoming aware of the bill of goods they were sold. It seems foolish for Democrats to continue to blame the GOP for stalling their agenda, when they have overwhelming majorities in Congress. The people are even more upset at more emanations coming from the White House that a tax increase isn't being ruled out. While Obama wants people to act as if he's had no government experience whatsoever, he also has the gall to claim that he's never signed a bill that's increased taxes. I think my friends who are smokers take issue with that claim...one commenter notes Obama's use of the word "yet," which indicates he plans to do so sometime in the future.

Rush Limbaugh noted in his book, See, I told you so, noted how Obama's predecessor, Bill Clinton promised no tax increase on the middle class during the campaign of 1992, taking a shot at liberals' tricking President Bush 41 into doing so, but raised them shortly after he was inaugurated. The electorate did not like it then either, and I highly doubt the electorate would allow it to pass this time. Obama should pay a political price for demanding the passage of Porkulus and a $33 billion expansion in S-CHIP, then demanding the middle class ante up to pay for it, while his political supporters continue to be drunk on the ObamAid.

Obama's supporters have drawn the line...they're daring us to cross it. They want this crappola passed regardless of the damage it'll cost, what are YOU gonna do about it?

Have a great day...

ObamAid Drinkers: Leave Obamessiah Alone!

Dr. Asten: Hell, no!

I recently got in a heated discussion with an Obama supporter, over a status on Facebook which called on people to stop criticizing President Obama, since he believes they patted President Bush on the back for eight years. When asked to clarify the Obamist's status message, it turned into the typical left versus right debate we were exposed to during the Bush Years, where the liberal would engage in attacks ad hominem and the conservative would try to engage in substantive debate. Any person who followed the news coverage of the Bush Years knows that the Obamist's statement is a misspeak, if not a lie. If anything, the media metamorphosed from being the "government watchdog," to the "government lapdog." The media tried their damndest to keep President Bush from being reelected, and made it a point to form their coverage to make him look like the "Imbecile-in-Chief." I reminded him that Republicans and conservatives were all over President Bush for runaway spending, illegal immigration, McCain-Feingold, and bungling Iraq. Hell, several self-described conservatives were arguing against the US invading Iraq.

Those facts proved his theory wrong, but he wasn't letting up. In a move that showed his intent was to empty the punch bowl, and follow the media's line hand over foot, the ObamAid drinker tried to come after me using the line we heard in the beginning of the Obama Administration, giving Obama time to "fix George Bush's mess." I reminded him that the economy grew after Bush's tax cuts in 2001, we were privileged to have 52 months of economic growth, which began to decline the year the majority in Congress switched to the Democrats. I also told him that if President Obama was serious about fixing the economy, he would have allowed both Republicans AND Democrats in on crafting the legislation which culminated in the Porkulus law. I also noted that Obama doesn't want the electorate to look at his US Senate record, where the supposed fiscal conservative Obama supported both TARP and the bailout of Bear Stearns. I explained that Obama is at least culpable for our current economic situation, and that he's not blameless. The Obamist claimed that he was one vote in a sea of 535, against a lone President Bush. I rejected that line for exactly what it was...its lameness.

Clearly, the Obamist was feeling frustrated that his theory was falling like a house a cards, he went into a tirade against McCain, asking me if I believed had McCain beat Obama, if the economy would be "hunky dory," to which I said "No," with the caveat that McCain would have better vetted his Treasury Secretary, and not allowed a tax cheat to dictate tax policy. I believe McCain would have called on a bipartisan bill to emerge from Congress that would have actually "jumpstarted the economy," instead of scaring the shit out of people declaring this money is needed now, and waiting until next fiscal year to spend a bulk of the funds. By this time, the ObamAid drinker was in sputtering rage, most of his words were indeterminable. I also told the Obamist that while he is content on allowing Obama to quadruple the deficit, and continue to blame President Bush, his talking point is in the minority.

In getting me to say that McCain's policy probably would not make everything "hunky dory," the Obamist declared "victory." I admit, his bar for victory must have been low, if all he wanted me to do was say something bad about Republicans. His larger point was refuted over and over again, yet he continued to ignore it and was sputtering at me because I would not jump on his bandwagon. He did claim that he's willing to give Obama another year before he will say the economy belongs to Obama. I say by that point, most Democrats would have distanced themselves from Obama, and this ObamAid drinker will still be drinking from the punch bowl wondering why he's all alone. It's a shame the ObamAid drinker I was "debating" was my own brother...

Gateway Pundit shows us the all familiar chart that shows how much the Obama Administration plans to increase the deficit. There's also a story on Yahoo! that says that tax cheating US Secretary of the Treasury, lil Timmy Geithner, has not ruled out tax increases for the middle class, and I suppose ObamAid drinkers will invoke the cynic card, claiming all politicians lie. It doesn't occur to them that their cynicism, in the face of Obama blowing up the deficit, will have a perilous effect on us in the future. The Porkulus jive was an excuse to pander to his political donors and rationale to enact his disastrous agenda on the nation. 2010 and 2012 can't get here fast enough.

This weekend, I also had the privilege, I guess, to read Gwen Ifill's Obama puffery, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," more on that in a later blogpost...

Have a great day...

Mark Morford: The Birthers are hijacking the GOP's agenda...

...the crazies on the Left did no such thing about Democrats...

By continuing to blog about the "Birthers," I am not lending them any credibility, because I don't agree with their movement. When I blog about them, I am only discussing how liberals apply credibility with the same standards as the shifting winds. Mark Morford, a blogger at HuffnPuff pokes fun at Birthers and the GOP, by offering up 9 more conspiracy theories they could embrace once the Obama birth certificate story dies. He and I agree that the Birthers have no legs to stand on, in light of the evidence, it's a fallacious claim he makes which gives me a problem. He claims that while the Left has no shortage of crazies, they did not dominate discussion in quite the same way as the Birthers are about the GOP. Anyone remember Trig-gate?

After Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate in the Election of 2008, journalists were airlifted into Juneau to try and dig up dirt on dear old Sarah. Barack Obama was licking his chops in anticipation for a saucy divorce story that similarly derailed the campaigns of his opponents for the US Senate. Unfortunately, Sarah was still married to her first husband and had children by him. She had no illegitimate children, and she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the union. Obama, whose lead over McCain was shrinking, began to panic. Soon, there were murmurings in the blue blogosphere about Sarah's fifth child actually being her grandson. "JACKPOT!" Obama said, reminiscing the 1970s and 80s gameshow. He stayed above the fray, but gave a milquetoast condemnation to liberals who pushed the story (and liberals blamed Sarah Palin for not quelling the rumors that started in the blue blogosphere...and they, oddly, don't call on Obama to do the same about the Birthers).

Need another? Look at Troopergate, where Sarah was under investigation for firing the Public Safety Commissioner. Before the investigation was complete, liberals were claiming that she abused her power and that she was unfit for being "a heartbeat away." The investigation found Sarah acted well within her authority to fire Walter Monegan for insubordination. Instead, liberals trumpted the notion that Palin "abused power," which was in contrast to the report. The report claimed she violated an ambiguous ethics law which said, "any public official’s action that benefits a personal or financial interest is a violation of public trust..." Hell, she could be sued for merely releasing carbon dioxide in the air...and liberals felt that THIS was the sole disqualification for her VP candidacy? Obama had many more problems than that. He obviously had become unnerved by Palin, since he referred to her as a "pig" in one of his campaign speeches. I don't think Morford is convinced that crazies on the Left don't make policy for Democrats yet.

In the aftermath of the contentious Election of 2000, liberals became apopletic about the possibility that the winning president can win the electoral vote, but not the popular one. Various conspiracy theories emerged that President Bush conspired with then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris to throw the election his way. There was one article that posed the hypothetical that something was amiss because the governor of the state in question happened to be the brother of one of the candidates. Several news outlets questioned the results of the election in an attempt to make Bush's presidency illegitimate, with chief conspiracy theorist, Michael Moore claiming that the news networks followed the lead of Fox News Channel.

There were murmurings about US forces committing war crimes among the blue blogosphere that got aired on the floor of the US Senate. Everyone, who's honest, recalls Senator Richard Durbin on the floor of the US Senate referring to GITMO as a "gulag," even though no independent report stated that GITMO detainees were being abused. When the tragedy at Abu Ghraib was exposed, at least one prominent Democrat alleged that all detainees in US custody were treated similar to prisoners in Saddam's rape rooms. The Haditha incident brought out more hysterics as Congressman Jack Murtha and Senator John Kerry alleged our forces were killing innocents in cold blood, by breaking into their houses in the dark of night. This, no doubt, was borne on the pages of blue blogs.

In my final episode of the wackiness of liberals being aired out by Democrats, comes the impending Bush impeachment. Because liberals felt that "Bush lied, kids died," since the intel he used to justify the Iraq invasion was faulty, and because they felt Bushie wanted to dismantle the US Constitution amendment by amendment, they believed he needed to be impeached. It was a crackpot idea, in light of many Democrats claiming the same thing Bush did...only years earlier. But that didn't stop the Democrats in the US House of Representatives from staging mock impeachment trials. I think Mr. Morford should take a more objective view of the crazies on the Left, and how they routinely make policy for Democrats, and stop projecting onto Republicans.

Can he explain the regular meetings Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other prominent Democrats, have with kos and other liberal bloggers and fellow crazies?

Have a great day...

Conyers: I didn't know members of Congress were supposed to read bills...

...don't people realize we have bigger fish to fry?

I believe that John Conyers (D-MI) has started a national debate. I mean, I would have thought that members of Congress reading bills they vote on as being a no-brainer, but the ruminations by the congressman, who is also the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, destroyed all that. Not only do I believe that Conyers has been in the House way too long, but it appears he's of the mindset that Congress must enact the president's agenda no matter the cost. He, like President Neophyte, have learned nothing about the Porkulus debate and the bailout of the auto industry. HotAirPundit has the video. Ed Morrissey rightly says that we send delegates to Washington to act on our behalf, so that we don't have to hold national referenda each time someone crafts a bill.

It seems that Democrat and liberal supporters of Neophyte take no issue with the fact that Congress isn't reading bills on which they vote. Everyone flashback to the debate on the Patriot Act in 2001. Liberal opponents of the bill slammed members of Congress for not holding much debate on the bill and passed it without reading it. They attempted to fan the flames that President Bush was "play[ing] to our fears," and besmirched supporters of the USA Patriot Act for allegedly surrendering our civil liberties (What a difference a presidential election makes...). Instead of reading bills, Conyers would rather invoke the Teddy Kennedy strategy, demonize the opposition.

Like Senator Kennedy, Conyers would rather shift focus from his questionable actions as congressman and those of his wife. Kennedy was trying to find some way to get President Nixon, and it didn't help that "Trickie Dicky" wasn't exactly forthcoming either, to shift focus from his July 1969 episode with a car, a woman, and a lake. Watergate, in itself, was not a crime, as many political heavyweights had engaged in similar tactics. Nixon himself was a victim of a break-in during his time in Congress. LBJ called on his press secretary, Bill Moyers, to investigate the sexual habits of Goldwater campaign staffers. LBJ also committed a few instances of voter fraud, while his predecessor's Justice Department wiretapped several prominent Civil Rights activists. Conyers is attempting to criminalize policies that had never been criminal before. By calling what the Bushites did, "torture," is blurring the lines between actual torture and "enhanced interrogation techniques," which were designed with human rights in mind. Liberals have been excellent at blurring lines before, see racism, and opposition to illegal immigration.

Most people are willing to concede that September 11th, 2001 changed how the US government handles terrorism. The methods that were used prior to that day proved ineffective and exposed a giant hole in our counterterrorism efforts. The Patriot Act tore down the wall that existed between intelligence and law enforcement agencies that had been built up during the war on intel during the 1970s and buttressed by Jamie Gorelick. The US had to engage in tactics that would ensure our nation would be safe from a future terrorist attack, by taking the fight to the enemy. Liberals cried up and down K Street in Washington over the fact that John Walker Lindh, Yaser Hamdi, and José Padilla were being held as enemy combatants...not that these three men were fighting against their country, therby putting it at risk. There was no real discussion over the president's powers in a conflict like this, all we heard were Democrats and liberal leaning groups feeling sorry that the terrorists got caught attempting to destroy the United States (Oh, and that they needed a new home team, since the USSR became rubble).

Glenn Greenwald, of Salon Magazine, is upset that the Washington Post editorial page advocates penalties for those who acted well outside the guidelines of the Office of Legal Counsel memos, which authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques." He, like other liberals, believe that Lyndie England, and her other compatriots that engaged in the horrible acts at Abu Ghraib, shouldn't be the only ones prosecuted for crimes, as they were scapegoated. He contends that the episode is merely breadcrumbs, which led all the way up to the Bush White House, like Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, said about President Reagan.

I wonder how many pieces of paper John Conyers will read during his investigation, if it happens...

Have a great day...