You want to know how the Democrats are going to try and beat the wrap of their cram down of Health Care “reform”?
Racism and Terrorism.
Much like the 2008 Presidential campaign you will be a racist if you don’t accept the cram down.
It’s a Civil Rights issue after all. 😦
And only racists are against Civil Rights.
The left likes to conveniently forget that more Democrats than Republicans were against the Civil Rights movement.
And the Amnesty crowd is going there too.
Then, we have Terrorism.
I have already been tarred with this one more than once already.
It goes like this.
You are are a threat to the power structure. You advocate overthrowing the rightful power structure (in their view)
So you must be a “domestic terrorist” simply for disagreeing with the almighty Leftist Liberals.
You are violent.
You will go all Columbine or Austin on them.
They have to be protected themselves from your violent wrath.
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.): “Our democracy is about participation,” Hoyer said. “Our democracy is about differing and debate and animated debate and passionate debate. But it is not about violence.”
So that’s why they met in closed door sessions, shut out the Republicans, bribed and intimidated members, and any actual real debate and schemed how to get this passed by circumventing as many rules as possible and ultimately saying to the people of this country, “Screw you. We’re going to do it anyways”.
But this is not the first time this has happened. Nancy Pelosi last summer warned people of the violence of the Tea Party movement that was hounding them at that time.
And remember Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napalitano filing a report that said the greatest threat to this country wasn’t radical muslims, but “right-wingers” and the returning military personnel.
So be prepared to be both a “racist” and a “Domestic Terrorist” if you dare disagree with the Almighty, All Powerful OZ (aka the Left).
This is what the left does.
They don’t debate.
They dismiss, demean, or destroy.
Saul Alinsky Chicago Politics.
And they have the Former Fourth Estate, now Fifth Column, Ministry of Truth (aka Mainstream Media) aiding and abetting their efforts.
“I know many Americans are angry over this health-care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner told Fox News Channel. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let’s do it the right way.”
Some Democrats, sensing a political opportunity, suggested that Republicans were fanning the anger with their fiery comments in recent days. Several GOP lawmakers stood on the speaker’s balcony at the Capitol overlooking a tea party protest last weekend holding up signs that read “Kill the Bill.” Below them, protesters were yelling “No! No! No!” and, referring to the House speaker, “Nancy, you will burn in hell for this!”
One columnist even suggested that the State lawsuits against the bill are anti-bellum pre-Civil War era arguments, like the “State’s Rights” slogan of the South before and during the Civil War.
Yes, they will go there.
So, if your State objects to the Federal Mandate on Insurance, you’re akin to the Confederate South who didn’t want to be told to free it’s slaves!
Yes, Virginia, they will most certainly say or do anything to conquer you.
Free Speech anyone….
IBD: Those who say “it can’t happen here” to the bully-boy tactics that prevent “hate speech” in Canada haven’t been paying attention. It does happen here, the First Amendment notwithstanding.
You don’t have to love what Ann Coulter says, or the incendiary way she says it, to be on the side of the best-selling conservative author when it comes to the blatant discrimination she suffered north of the border this week.
Left-wing demonstrators at the University of Ottawa made it impossible for Coulter to speak there Tuesday night.
But the menacing crowd might have been small enough to handle had it not been stirred up by a high-profile e-mail warning to Coulter by the school’s provost, Francois Houle, last Friday.
Houle invited her “to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.”
Coulter turned the tables, announcing she will file a complaint with Canada’s Human Rights Commission alleging hate speech, charging Houle’s warning unfairly singled her out as a conservative, a Christian and a woman.
She’s only the latest victim of Canadian intolerance. Columnist Mark Steyn, who frequently appears in IBD, was dragged into a government investigation after a Muslim group complained about an excerpt from his book “America Alone” in Maclean’s magazine in 2006. Steyn had argued the West was suffering “civilizational exhaustion” in the face of a demographic threat from Muslims.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission dropped the case, but condemned Steyn. So did the Canadian Human Rights Commission, issuing a public letter defending “reasonable limits on the expression of hatred.” Canada’s media were mostly AWOL in defending Steyn from their rulers.
Ottawa’s leftist students celebrated keeping Coulter’s “discriminatory rhetoric” off their campus. But how widely can that, or “hate speech,” be defined? Coulter once sarcastically told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that she didn’t think of the murder of abortionist Dr. George Tiller “as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.” Would Canada’s hate censors not allow that?
We may think, with a First Amendment south of the border, we don’t have to worry. But we do. It was only a slim 5-to-4 majority that in January threw out the McCain-Feingold law banning political speech over the airwaves too close to an election date.
And politicians of the left are eager to re-impose the so-called Fairness Doctrine regulating broadcasters’ content.
Just as “hate” can be defined to suit those in power, so can the First Amendment itself.
And their is talk that one of the Supreme Court Justices may step down, making it a Liberal Left court.
So “hate speech” could easily be defined as that which disagrees with those in power (aka the Left).
You say, they’d never go that far.
I say why wouldn’t they.
After all, if the end justifies the means, what stops them from going there to intimidate, thwart, and crush opposition to their desires?
Certainly not any morals or ethics.
The End justifies the means.
Think about that for a moment.
Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.