Live Free Speech or Die

The following haqs NOT been approved by the Social Justice Ministry of Truth and as such you should understand that reading it is Thoughtcrime punishable by derision and shame-mongering by the “tolerant” and “diversity” loving Leftists of America.

We’d rather die than “live” on our knees, begging permission to exercise the right God gave us to say whatever we damn well please, whenever we damn well please, and in the manner we damn well please. And those who want to shut us up better be equally committed if they want to succeed.

After Garland, they went too far. They showed their hand and their goal, a world where they decide who gets to say what. Imagine the same hysterical social justice drama queens who shriek about microaggressions getting to decide what you can and can’t say. Just understand, you fascist bastards, that if you want to be Nazis, you’ll need to do what the Nazis did and find some armed thugs – yeah, I’m using the word “thugs” whether you like it or not – to come stop us. Tell them to wear Kevlar.

Garland and the sorry aftermath of terrorist apologetics that followed were a warning to every freedom-loving American, as well as an illustration of what one freedom-loving American with training and a Glock can do against the forces of totalitarianism. These jihadi savages tried to silence and intimidate all free Americans. They failed.

Progressives mutter without conviction about how they can’t support violence, but … but … but, in fact, they do support violence. It’s not just their chilling with bomb-planting guys around the neighborhood and free passes for the looters in Ferguson and Baltimore. They support whatever it takes to silence us.

When the Democrats in Congress vote to repeal the First Amendment, or when they babble about outlawing what they label “hate speech,” what these leftist elitists seek to do is to empower a government they control to send armed men to stop us from saying what they have determined we may not say. They can’t stand up to the truth we speak; they have to suppress it or scamper away like roaches caught in the light.

No. You see, we aren’t giving up our right of free speech or, for that matter, any other rights you leftist schmucks deem inconvenient.

Those miserable losers in Garland weren’t just a couple of carcasses. Shot down in the street by a free American who was not intimidated, who was not afraid, who absolutely, positively was not going to back down even when outnumbered and outgunned, their dead bodies are a symbol. They are a symbol of our resolve, proof that we will not surrender, we will not submit, and we will not allow our God-given rights to be stolen from us by anyone, not Seventh Century savages, not Gucci-wearing liberal narcissists, and not twisted social justice warriorettes taking out on the rest of humanity their lingering disappointment that no boy wanted to be seen with them at the prom.

To the gutless and cowardly who would gladly submit to dhimmitude, whether imposed by the jihadi creeps or the progressive cadres, we can say only that we pity you. We pity the fact that every day you have to wake up and look in the mirror and see the face of a man, or woman, or whichever of the 567 other gender identities the freakshow left has manufactured, who is more concerned with personal safety than with personal dignity. Pathetic.

Maybe preserving your life is worth living as a slave, but we reject your craven choice. God did not put us on this Earth to be the minions of some oligarchy of malignant punks, obedient and afraid. You want to clasp a figurative collar around our necks? You better hire a whole bunch of dudes who are a whole a lot better at close quarter combat than those clowns in Garland. And you sure won’t find any tactically proficient future stormtroopers in the local university’s Womyns’ Studies Department or sipping cosmos at some Manhattan cocktail party.

You want to turn America into the fascist state of your dreams? Remember Lexington and Concord? No, you don’t, because you were too busy taking courses in Socialist Tap Dance to squeeze in a history course. So let me break it down for you: You’ll need to fight. And you putzes don’t have the skill or the guts to do it.

The jihadis can’t fight, and you leftists won’t. You progressives thought you could just slowly nibble away at our rights, gnawing off a bit here and a bit there, slowly, so we wouldn’t notice. You thought you could shame, bully, and browbeat us into the figurative cattle cars for carriage off to the giant reeducation camp you wanted to make of our culture. Who needed men in black with guns? We were supposed to willingly, even eagerly, submit. But that’s not going to happen.

Oh, you came so close. For so long, we wrongly imagined that your lies about racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and all the rest were just part of some big misunderstanding. Sure, we knew you were wrong, that we were being falsely accused, but we thought you were at least sincere, if misguided. Except now the mask is off.

Racism? You don’t care. Ask Clarence Thomas about your love of minorities who don’t toe your line.

Sexism? You don’t care. Ask any of Bill Clinton’s victims, who you eagerly sacrificed to save your progressive knight.

Homophobia? Poverty? Corporate abuses? Civil rights? You care nothing about any of them. You leftists just want control. You trash gays who get between you and power, and ignore the gays being murdered in the Middle East because that oppression isn’t useful to you. You keep the poor poor and addicted to your paltry handouts so you can maintain a docile voting bloc. Corporate abuses are terrible right up until the big companies start paying off your candidates. And civil rights? Gimme a break. The First Amendment stopped being useful back in January 2009, so now you’re eager to drown it like Mary Jo Kopechne.

We’re done. You fascists, whether Islamo- or liberal, want to shut us up? Then you better be ready to rumble, because submission isn’t one of the options. We will speak free or die. (Kurt Schlichter)

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 

Coalition of The Unwilling

The semantically unsound rubbish concept of “Islamophobia” disorients well-meaning people and incites them to spout illogicalities with a preacher’s righteousness.

“Islamophobia” contributes to the generalized befuddlement on the left about the faith in question and whether negative talk about it constitutes some sort of racism, or proxy for it.

It shouldn’t but it does.

204 authors to sign a letter dissociating themselves from PEN’s granting the Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the brave, talented surviving artists of Charlie Hebdo.

The authors objecting did so out of concern, according to their statement, for “the section of the French population” – its Muslims – “that is already marginalized, embattled, and victimized, a population that is shaped by the legacy of France’s various colonial enterprises.”  A “large percentage” of these Muslims are “devout,” contend the writers, and should thus be spared the “humiliation and suffering” Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons allegedly caused them.

Bill Maher (who’s politics couldn’t be farther from mine) called Pamela Geller a “loon” but said, “This is America, do we not have the right to draw whatever we want?”

Maher brought up Charlie Hebdo and said he’s a little disturbed by the whole “soft bigotry of low expectations” when it comes to that magazine’s critics assuming that “Muslims aren’t able to control themselves.”

So since they got off on any provocation THEY perceive  we must their walk on micro eggshells and temper everything we do and say about them like they are a volatile  chemical ready to exploded at any second?

That’s crazy talk!

Islamic radicals kill people and it’s the people’s fault for victimizing their sensibilities!!!

The Nazis kill Jews and Homosexuals in the millions in WWI and it’s the  dead victims of the gas chambers and mass murders fault!!!

That’s how messed up the Left and The Leftist media’s brains are now.

So, why is there such a difference between the coverage of Christianity and Islam bashing? Why so much criticism against Geller for merely hosting this event? One shouldn’t have to question their right to speak, assemble, or carry a firearm. I don’t find questioning the why someone chooses to exercise laws codified in our Bill of Rights to be a discussion. In some cases, it’s a progressive exercise to put the Constitution of a graduated scale to put some amendments, likes the Second one, in the crosshairs for marginalization and elimination. These are rights that should be maximized in civil society. So, why do some members of the media have this appalling attitude? Maybe it’s because they know Islam has a problem, and it’s one that’s been present for a very, very long time (via NRO):

…The fury against Pamela Geller is motivated mostly by fear — by the understanding that there are indeed many, many Muslims who believe that blasphemy should be punished with death, and who put that belief into practice. It’s motivated by the fear that our alliances with even “friendly” Muslim states and “allied” Muslim militias are so fragile that something so insignificant as a cartoon would drive them either to neutrality or straight into the arms of ISIS.…

That’s why even the military brass will do something so unusual as call a fringe pastor of a tiny little church to beg him not to post a YouTube video. That’s why the president of the United States — ostensibly the most powerful man in the world — will personally appeal to that same pastor not to burn a Koran. They know that hundreds of millions of Muslims are not “moderate” by any reasonable definition of that word, and they will,in fact, allow themselves to be provoked by even the most insignificant and small-scale act of religious satire or defiance. After all, there are Muslim communities that will gladly burn Christians alive to punish even rumored blasphemy.

Our nation’s “elite” knows of the 88 percent support in Egypt for the death penalty for apostasy, and the 62 percent support in Pakistan. They know of the majority support for it in Malaysia, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. They know that even when there’s not majority support for the death penalty for exercising one of the most basic of human rights — religious freedom — that large minorities still exercise considerable, and often violent, influence on their nations. The elite also knows this bloodthirstiness extends to supporting terrorists. The following Pew Research Center numbers should sober anyone who believes in the “few extremists” model of Muslim culture

Further, our elites also know that while ISIS’s brutality certainly repels many Muslims, it attracts many others — that there are Muslim young people who are so captivated by images of beheadings and burnings that they’ll defy the law and their own nations to make their way to the jihadist battlefronts of Iraq and Syria.

Unable or unwilling to formulate a strategy to comprehensively defeat jihad or even to adequately defend our nation, our elites adopt a strategy of cultural appeasement that only strengthens our enemy. Millions in the Muslim world are drawn to the “strong horse” (to use Osama bin Laden’s phrase), and when jihadists intimidate the West into silence and conformity, the jihadists show themselves strong.

Now, what happened in Garland shouldn’t drive us all to participate in a national campaign of “do your part, offend a Muslim, but some in the media–and in politics–need to quit with the political correctness sound bites and parsing of the First Amendment. There is no such thing as responsibility with free speech; that’s liberal code for don’t say things we don’t like. Exercise your speech with pride–and if it offends someone; politely remind him or her they have every right to voice why they think you’re wrong.  They can also express their views in a cartoon-format. (Matt Vespa and others) 🙂

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

The Geller Apocolypse

Everything you need to know about the leftist bias in the media:

Pamela Geller says she has no regrets about Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that ended in 2 deaths” (AP)

It was HER fault that two jihadists were killed by police after they drove a 1000 miles to kill her and anyone in her general vicinity.

The Fatwa was HER Fault.

The dead jihadists are the victims!!

OMG! How F*cked up is that!

So let’s trash her!

A master of rhetoric and clearly comfortable in the spotlight, the 56-year-old former media executive shifts easily from charming to combative. Her critics have called the cartoon contest needlessly provocative, practically an invitation for violence. But Geller argued that any blame should be focused on extremists who can’t be criticized or lampooned without resorting to violence.

“Cartoons are political critique. It’s a cartoon,” she said. “Is that what we want to outlaw? We want to outlaw humor? We want to outlaw comedy? If you want to know who rules over you, find out who you cannot criticize.”

Her activities have prompted the Southern Poverty Law Center to add her to its extremist files, calling her “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead.”

In an editorial Thursday, The New York Times said Geller “has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims” and called the Garland event “an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom. … To pretend it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”

Wow, no bias there!!

As head of an organization called the American Freedom Defense Initiative, she took in $960,000 in donations in 2013, paying herself a salary of $192,500, according to tax filings.

Donations pour in from the PayPal button on her website, Geller said, adding that she has “no idea” how much money she has raised.

Oh, and her main donor is a <<<evil music sting>> A CONSERVATIVE Foundation! OMG! THE Apocolypse is upon us all. She’s another Anti-Christ!

Yet, no one at the Liberal Media is even remotely worried about The Clinton Foundation and all that money. $500,000 per speech for Bill “gotta pay the bills”. Ha! Ha! That’s funny Bill.

Pam Geller makes money, that’s suspicious and evil.

The Clinton Foundation rakes in Millions to Billions, no one on the Left cares. They think it’s a good thing!

Hillary takes in money from dubious sources. No one cares. They let Bill have the pithy comebacks like “I just work here” and they laugh it off and  go on there merry way.

But Freedom Speech, naw, who gives a crap about that.

Hillary wants to buy the election with $2 BILLION  (3 times what Obama raised) and that’s a good thing.

The U.S. State Department will not review the breaches of the 2008 ethics agreement Hillary Clinton signed in order to become secretary of state after her family’s charities admitted in March that they had not complied, a spokesman said on Thursday.

“The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” Rathke told reporters. (Reuters)

Muslim jihadist try to kill Americans on American soil, not only is it her fault but SHE’s THE BAD GUY for ‘upsetting’ them.

America, What a Country!

The daily threat is the Sharia-flavored assault on our liberties, the kind of pressure exerted by reasonable-sounding Islamists in communities across America, under the guise of fighting “Islamophobia.”

It was just such an event that attracted attention in January in the same convention center attacked by Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi on May 3. Dubbed “Stand With the Prophet,” it featured elements of earnest concern about Islam’s image in America. But it also featured moments of scurrilous slander against anyone who would speak boldly against the terrorist wing of the Islamic faith.

Employing the first rule of political correctness, the “Stand With the Prophet” event brimmed with the fascist sentiment that assertive words against radical Islam must be branded as hate speech.

Sadly, this is the same noxious logic the Southern Poverty Law Center uses in its reckless designation of Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative as an anti-Muslim hate group.

It is neither a hate group nor anti-Muslim. It is anti-free speech repression. Muslims willing to tolerate America’s heritage of free expression will taste no quarrel with Geller’s AFDI.

Her group mounted the cartoon contest not from a general distaste for Muslims, but as a ballsy response to Jihadist habits of suppressing expression that rattles their fragile sensibilities. The most extreme example of this thin skin is the recent tendency of some hard-liners to take up arms against those who have drawn images of the prophet Muhammad. The Charlie Hebdo attacks in January and the widespread riots protesting Danish cartoons a decade ago reveal a facet of Islam’s advance that poses a dire threat to all societies cherishing freedom of expression.

So, seeking to put a stick in the eye of such an affront, the Geller event sought to make a point that we will not be told what we can and cannot draw— or say, or write, for that matter.

By the time the day was over, another lesson had been delivered. Unlike the sitting ducks in the Paris office, in Texas, we shoot back. One hopes the growing ISIS fan base will be somewhat dampened each time its adherents are killed before they take out one infidel.

 

That lesson has been so popular that it has drawn many to approve of the whole cartoon-contest idea, fancying it as a method to smoke out the next wave of twisted souls seeking to spread the caliphate by challenging Americans engaged in free speech.

But here is where a line is drawn, between standing up for groups like AFDI as they hold such events, and actually advocating them.

That line is beyond the grasp of many. Soon after the January event in Garland had attempted to bully and berate anti-jihad speech, I heard of the plan for the Muhammad cartoon contest. I may have audibly groaned.

I am as ready as anyone to take the battle to the terrorists, whether by bombing them into oblivion in the Middle East, or defending America against violence or ancient repressions here in America.

But the cartoon contest was problematic at several levels. It was clumsily broad and needlessly hurtful to countless people who are guilty of nothing.

Remember, the cartoon-fest was not just a show of defiance to the rioters and murderers who react violently to Muhammad on paper; it was a massive back of the hand to the entire Muslim world and its article of faith that says not to draw its prophet.

Some folks cared not one bit about collateral offense. “These people killed our countrymen on 9/11,” one radio caller told me. “I can’t get real worked up about getting them steamed about a stupid cartoon.”

Not an unprincipled view. But as we hopefully move toward a new era of rejoining the war our enemy has never stopped fighting, it is time to note the need to fight hard, but fight smart.

Our war effort should do two things: obliterate the enemy militarily, and make clear that we have no dispute with Muslims willing to peacefully coexist in free societies.

The Islamic rules against depicting Muhammad are no skin off anyone’s nose, and that belief deserved better than to be savaged by some righteously offended Americans looking to score points against radical views recommending violence to prevent such depictions.

Let us focus our energies not on flipping giant birds in the general direction of all Muslims, but rather a concerted effort to vanquish the portion of Islamic culture that gave birth to murderous overreactions to art.

There have been multiple lessons in recent days, groupable in a folder one might call Free Speech 101 in the Age of Islamic Repression. Its highlights:

— Strict Quranic interpretations are incompatible with American law in many ways. Few examples are more valuable than Sharia’s call to shut down offending speech by the sword.

— In America, some folks believe that free speech is supported only if the words are embraced and praised. I cannot be more clear: Ms. Geller has the right to hold a daily Muhammad cartoon contest if she wishes. But if that tactic is not my cup of tea, no one should suggest that my defense of her rights is somehow timid.

— Vast cross- sections of America need a refresher course on free expression. The First Amendment exists to protect precisely those types of speech that rankle some sensibilities. Safe, sanguine speech requires no protection. There are exceptions for fighting words and incitements to violence, but the Garland event exemplified neither. It was a private event that forced no unwitting souls to gaze upon the Prophet. As for incitements, they are actual invitations to do specific harm. The mere crafting of words or images that are infuriating to some are the problem of the offended party, not the artist.

Those knocked off-kilter by the free expression of others have the responsibility to learn a skill set: First, let it go like big boys and girls, realizing that freedom means occasionally running across things that can anger, provoke, even infuriate; Or second, engage in more free speech in return. Explain why you are offended, call for self-restraint in the creation of incendiary images, and then just walk away. Such entreaties may prevail, they may not. Such is life in a free society.

Every Muslim in America should know that a free society is what they have chosen to enter. Our incredibly tolerant and resilient nation mounted no national wave of retribution even after Islamic terrorists ripped our hearts out on 9/11.

But clear-eyed assessments of our war against radicals are not hate speech. And the occasional edgy stunt designed to highlight the jihadists’ hostility to American law and culture does not warrant an armed attack.

In today’s America, we cannot even know the name of a heroic police officer who mowed down the two Garland terrorists before they could kill a single Texan. The reason: too many concerns about his safety.

We will know we have rejoined the battle when ISIS is more worried about its safety than the brave Americans who occasionally mow down an ISIS operative.

Meanwhile, let us marshal any passion for more cartoon contests and channel it toward something genuinely constructive: the election of a President who is serious at all levels about fighting radical Islam, fending off both its terror tactics and repressive instincts. (Mark Davis)

Mission Accomplished

The post “Mission Accomplished” Obama Foreign policy on Terrorism where Al-Qaeda is “crippled” and on no longer as big a threat.

A jihadist website posted a new threat by al Qaeda this week that promises to conduct “shocking” attacks on the United States and the West.

The posting appeared on the Ansar al Mujahidin network Sunday and carried the headline, “Map of al Qaeda and its future strikes.”

The message, in Arabic, asks: “Where will the next strike by al Qaeda be?” A translation was obtained by Inside the Ring.

“The answer for it, in short: The coming strikes by al Qaeda, with God’s Might, will be in the heart of the land of nonbelief, America, and in France, Denmark, other countries in Europe, in the countries that helped and are helping France, and in other places that shall be named by al Qaeda at other times,” the threat states.

The attacks will be “strong, serious, alarming, earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying.”

The Ansar al-Mujahidin network is a well-known jihadist forum that in the past has published reliably accurate propaganda messages from al Qaeda and its affiliates. (WT)

OBAMACARE

Some families could get priced out of health insurance due to what’s being called a glitch in President Barack Obama’s overhaul law. IRS regulations issued Wednesday failed to fix the problem as liberal backers of the president’s plan had hoped.

As a result, some families that can’t afford the employer coverage that they are offered on the job will not be able to get financial assistance from the government to buy private health insurance on their own. How many people will be affected is unclear.

The Obama administration says its hands were tied by the way Congress wrote the law.

I Guess you had to pass it to find out what is NOT IN IT, 3 years later! 🙂

The problem seems to be the way the law defined affordable.

BUT THAT WAS POINT OF THIS MONSTER, RIGHT?? I guess it depends on the what definition of “affordable” is? 🙂

Congress said affordable coverage can’t cost more than 9.5 percent of family income. People with coverage the law considers affordable cannot get subsidies to go into the new insurance markets. The purpose of that restriction was to prevent a stampede away from employer coverage.

Congress went on to say that what counts as affordable is keyed to the cost of self-only coverage offered to an individual worker, not his or her family. A typical workplace plan costs about $5,600 for an individual worker. But the cost of family coverage is nearly three times higher, about $15,700, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

So if the employer isn’t willing to chip in for family premiums – as most big companies already do – some families will be out of luck. They may not be able to afford the full premium on their own, and they’d be locked out of the subsidies in the health care overhaul law.

Employers are relieved that the Obama administration didn’t try to put the cost of providing family coverage on them.

“They are bound by the law and cannot extend further than what the law provides,” said Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation.

Obamanomics: The economy shrank last quarter, the deficit topped $1 trillion last year, U.S. debt shot up $5 trillion in the past four, and joblessness is at 7.8%. Boy, President Obama sure inherited an economic mess, didn’t he?

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the economy “unexpectedly” declined 0.1% in last three months of 2012, the first decline since early 2009.

The Obama administration, naturally, tried to look for scapegoats, this time settling on Hurricane Sandy and Republican-induced uncertainty over the “fiscal cliff” outcome.

But if that were the case, why was the administration running around late last year telling everyone how great the economy was doing?

And why didn’t any economist predict a downturn?

The average forecast among 50 economists surveyed earlier this month was for 1.6% GDP growth, and the most pessimistic pegged it at just under 1%.

Liberals were also quick to blame alleged spending cuts. Jared Bernstein — a former Obama economic advisor — complained that “austerity at (a) time when we need a fiscal push” is the problem.

“Congress is applying medieval techniques,” he wrote, “bleeding the patient while ignoring the indicators both here and abroad as to how that’s working.”

An interesting theory. Except that while the BEA says defense spending declined in Q4, overall federal spending was up $31 billion compared with Q4 2011 and up $98 billion compared with Q3 2012, according to monthly spending reports out of the Treasury Department.

And even assuming that the “huge cuts” from the sequester go through, spending this year will be about $570 billion higher than in 2008, and will consume 22.4% of GDP — a level reached only four times in the 63 years before Obama.

So maybe it’s the lack of adequate stimulus?

Perhaps, but only if you ignore the Fed’s massive ongoing pump-priming efforts, and the fact that the deficit in Q4 alone topped $292 billion — nearly double the deficit for all of 2007.

The lack of good excuses might explain why Obama and Co. are so desperate to put a positive spin on the numbers.

Democratic Party communications director Brad Woodhouse actually tweeted that this was “the best-looking contraction in U.S. GDP you’ll ever see.”

That’s one way of looking at it.

Another is that slow to non-existent growth has become the new normal thanks to Obama’s growth-choking policies, with the economy consistently underperforming expectations.

When Obama first took office, he forecast 4% GDP growth for 2011 and 2012, as did most everyone else.

Actual results: 1.8% growth in 2011 and 2.2% in 2012.

Just last summer, Obama was saying that Q4-over-Q4 growth in 2012 would be 2.6%. Actual result: 1.5%.

Now with Obama’s huge tax hikes kicking in, his regulators once again running amok, ObamaCare’s storm clouds looming ever closer, and deficits expected to top $1 trillion for the fifth year, why should anyone be surprised if the economy underperforms again in 2013? (IBD)

But that’s Bush/Republicans/Tea Partier’s Fault!!!
Now onto the next Crisis…
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

It Was a Good Day for “Astroturf”

Yesterday was a stellar day of history for “Astroturf”.

The people rose up and they would not be swayed. They faced down their oppressive government and didn’t blink.

And the Liberal Media Loved them for it!

Too bad they were Egyptians.

When it happens here, it’s “astroturf”.

April 2009: Queen Pelosi-“This [tea party] initiative is funded by the high end — we call call it astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.”

*
You’ve seen them on television: Grannies carrying signs capable of inflicting severe paper cuts; soccer moms waving flags with sharp, sinister points at the end of their staffs; World War II veterans leaning on canes that can bruise and maim; children with ice cream cones that can be launched, raining huge amounts of sticky goo down on everyone within five feet.

These are the new enemies. These are the domestic terrorists that must be feared by the rest of us. Be careful. If they get their way America might return to the great nation that the founders envisioned.

On April 15 twelve thousand of these malcontents gathered on the capitol building’s lawn in Madison, Wisconsin and held a (gasp) tea party. When it was over they left tons of garbage in their wake. Oh, wait, that was the Obama inauguration at Washington D.C.

Well, tea partiers threw rocks at police and set fires to cars. Um … no, that was the Democratic National Convention in 1968.

Ok, so they bombed the pentagon, killed some cops, and destroyed a math center at the University of Wisconsin. Excuse me; that was the Weather Underground.

They set fires to construction machinery in California and drove spikes into timber to maim loggers. Sorry, that was Earth Liberation Front.

Actually, is seems that all the violence over the past decades has come from the left. All the tea party has done is exercise their Constitutional right to lawfully assemble and petition their government for redress of their grievances.
Administration spokesmen to the press have called tea party attendees everything from racists to seditionists in hopes that they can shut them up. SEIU gorillas have beaten them down. Infiltrators have crashed the parties in hopes of fostering some kind of violence.

But instead of violence the infiltrators are met with hand shaking, welcoming, and smiles. (examiner-milwaukee)

Mr Obama compared the youthful Egyptian protest movement to the Germans who tore down the Berlin Wall, Gandhi leading India to independence, and the Indonesian popular protest movement that had succeeded in forcing President Suharto to resign.

“Egyptians have inspired us, and they’ve done so by putting the lie to the idea that justice is best gained through violence,” he said.

“For in Egypt, it was the moral force of non-violence – not terrorism, not mindless killing – but non-violence, moral force, that bent the arc of history toward justice once more.”

And he quoted American civil rights icon Martin Luther King: “There’s something in the soul that cries out for freedom.”(BBC)

But protest ObamaCare (and The EPA,THE FCC,FTC,FDA ad nausuem) and you’re just a bunch of wild,violent, racist terrorist pieces of astroturf!

Don’t worry the Liberal has the utmost admiration and love for people who stand up to dictators and an over-reaching government, AS LONG AS THEY AREN’T THE TARGET OF IT.

Then it’s evil and you’re “stupid”, “Morons”, “idiots”, “Dupes”, “racists”, “Violent”  “domestic terrorists”, ad nauseum.

May 2010: Cue the fringe. Daily Kos wildly said there are only two types of terrorists, jihadists or tea partiers

Newsweek April 26, 2010: A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. “The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability”—25 percent, to be exact—”of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters,” says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. “The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race.”

Newsweek said it’s true, so it must be! (These, of course are also the slammers of “Islamophobia” every time you bring up islamic jihad by the way)

In 2003, Hillary Clinton screeched “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

As long, of course, as it was George W Bush or a Republican, that is. Do it now and you’re condescended to, insulted, demeaned and treated like the dirt between their toes that they think you are.

But the Left loves Egypt right now, they just can’t walk like an Egyptian (you knew I’d get that in there somewhere now didn’t you!) 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok