In the 1960’s, the great Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps theorized a “natural” rate 0f unemployment. Now, it appears, Democrats are proposing that President Clinton discovered a natural rate of taxation. That’s a best-case-scenario.
Democrats have demagogued the “Bush” tax cuts mostly on the basis that Clinton “created” a surplus. This argument assumes that 1) Clinton was the person responsible for “creating” the surplus, and 2) Government surpluses are a good thing. It also assumes, most importantly, that somehow his rates of taxation are ultimately more just and fair.
Ultimately pretending (for now) as though the Clinton administration discovered some heretofore unknown “natural” rate of taxation, Democrats pretend that the Bush tax cut favor “the rich”, that they are burdensome to the “middle class”, and that they ultimate undermine economic prosperity.
Forget, for a moment, that the Great Architect of the Universe only asks a paltry ten percent of our income. How can Democrats act as though an increase in tax rates is not, in fact, a tax hike? I might not be a linguist, but if tax rates increase tomorrow or a couple of months from now from their current rates, is that not a “hike”? That’s like saying that a climb from Denver to Pike’s Peak isn’t an increase if you scaled that peak when Bill Clinton was president. What a joke.
But Democrats seem undeterred. Their taxation policies flow from their obvious belief that there is a point at which people are comfortable enough in life and that from that point on, the state is entitled to take whatever they want. This is partly at the center of Democrat bleating about the Koch brothers. Nevermind the outrageous funding of Democratic activism by George Soros, who gave infinitely more money to MoveOn.org. That’s different! Why, he advocates tax raises which will affect him, therefore it’s okay! The manifest difference between the Koch brothers and Soros isn’t a denial of self-interest; it’s arrogance. Soros doesn’t agitate for tax increases because he’s a martyr; he does so to demonstrate his power and wealth. He’s obviously telling the world that no matter how much money we seize from him in taxes, he’ll still bet on money, fly private jets, and influence elections. He’ll still be plenty comfy because he reckons he makes more money than God. The Koches, on the other hand, believe their money is theirs. How insidious!
Bush and a Republican congress cut taxes across the board. They seemed to favor the “rich” because the rich make more and therefore pay more. Awful, isn’t it? What is simple math to most is turned into a talking point by Democrats. And yet, they worry that their impending electoral problems are all about “branding”.
Republicans didn’t make the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent at the time because it was much easier to pass with a deadline but also because they assumed the assuming prosperity would make them permanent. Bush didn’t cause the economic collapse; mostly Dem policies on home loans and regulation did.
Democrats bemoan the Bush tax cuts as nepotism, corporate greed, and worse, without stopping to check themselves. Maybe it’s time they stopped pretending letting the Bush cuts expire wasn’t a “hike”, and started trying to convince people why God Almighty only insists on ten percent of their income but they think that their rates are much more “fair”.
You have to at least give President Obama some credit; while stopping short of admitting error and giving credit for the success of the surge to George W. Bush, at least he mustered the class to essentially cede that Bush wasn’t intentionally treasonous. Hell, he even managed not to bash him!
While the president displayed a modicum of propriety and class, the Treason Times simply can’t let go of rabid Bush hatred and several ancient memes that all but the most hardened of leftists long ago abandoned.
The speech also made us reflect on how little Mr. Bush accomplished by needlessly invading Iraq in March 2003 — and then ludicrously declaring victory two months later.
Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction proved to be Bush administration propaganda. The war has not created a new era of democracy in the Middle East — or in Iraq for that matter. There are stirrings of democratic politics in Iraq that give us hope. But there is no government six months after national elections.
In many ways, the war made Americans less safe, creating a new organization of terrorists and diverting the nation’s military resources and political will from Afghanistan. Deprived of its main adversary, a strong Iraq, Iran was left freer to pursue its nuclear program, to direct and finance extremist groups and to meddle in Iraq.
Mr. Obama graciously said it was time to put disagreements over Iraq behind us, but it is important not to forget how much damage Mr. Bush caused by misleading Americans about exotic weapons, about American troops being greeted with open arms, about creating a model democracy in Baghdad.
The Gray Lady is an embarrassment. Anybody who has even the most meager understanding of military terms and culture understands that the “Mission Accomplished” banner moment underscored the end to the conventional war against the Iraqi Army, the Republican Guard, and the successful effort to depose Hussein and his corrupt government. The “Mission” spoken of on the banner was, indeed, accomplished. What commenced thereafter was the beginning of a completely different mission: counterinsurgency operations.
The fact of the matter is–contrary to the constant bloviating from hard-core leftists and leftist rags like the Times–that the vast majority of Iraqis welcomed the troops with “open arms” at the end of the 2003 invasion. Unless the Times is positing their belief that the whole of the Iraqi populace was engaged in insurgent operations, I don’t think the mere presence of an insurgency means we weren’t welcomed with “open arms”. Any troop who has been on the ground there will tell you that the majority of Iraqi citizens that are encountered on a day-to-day basis appreciates our presence there; certainly they are glad to be rid of Hussein. Ah, but if only we’d left Iraq alone, Saddam probably wouldn’t have gotten around to raping every little girl in front of their fathers. Who know?–he might have let plenty of dissidents keep their tongues. Quite a philanthropist, that Hussein character.
Time and time and time again the “Bush lied us into war” meme has been torn to tatters. But credit the editorial staff of the Times for their pluck and “can-do” attitudes. Years after it was discovered that faulty intelligence–much of it from the British government and much of it Clinton era–and not “Bush lying” helped spur the Iraq invasion, the Times is sticking by their story. They are like petulant children engaged in the most protracted and damaging temper tantrum of all-time. This is the same rag that publishes the semi-literate rantings of clowns like Frank Rich and Paul Krugman, who must have slept through the Times treasonous eight-year long campaign of lies against George W. Bush; these people consistently claim that the era of Hopenchange is one of unprecedented partisan obstructionism and extremism.
Particularly piquant is the repeated suggestion that the war in Iraq has made America “less safe”. Is the Times suggesting that somehow fighting extremists half a world away is less preferable than fighting them here? Are they suggesting that the war in Iraq prompted otherwise peace-loving people living in caves in Waziristan to surrender their pacifist lifestyles to fight the evil American aggressors in Iraq? It would be truly helpful if any leftist, anywhere, could explain the absurdity of the entire “the Iraq War has made America less safe” canard. Iran would have pursued its nuclear ambitions with or without Saddam Hussein there to essentially not do anything; after all, Iran and Iraq hadn’t gotten froggy with each other in many years. Are leftist trying to pretend Hussein would have gone to war with Iran himself to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons? This is pure fantasy parading as analysis.
But what really chafes is the implication that America, or American troops, or even George W. Bush, are responsible for “100,000 Iraqis dead”, as though the vast majority of them weren’t killed by, or as a result of, insurgents. Apparently, American troops just showed up and started randomly shooting folks.
But hey, look on the bright side! Now the Times can focus on trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan.
Steve Benen, writing for the Washington Monthly, has a fairly storied history of hating Glenn Beck. There are times when Mr. Benen’s writing is somewhat stimulating and provocative; what he wrote regarding the “Restoring Honor” rally is an exercise in pure intellectual laziness and dishonesty.
Mr. Benen, though intelligent, is apparently at a loss to discern any sort of ’cause’ motivating the Tea Parties. Why he chose to air his grievances with the Tea Parties when the rally in question had no ostensible political objective is a question for the ages. Bearing in mind that what he really takes issue with are the Tea Parties, he purports to offer up ‘statements’ from tea partiers, only to offer up snide and often wholly irrelevant answers to those questions. A quick sampling:
This is about “freedom.”
Well, I’m certainly pro-freedom, and as far as I can tell, the anti-freedom crowd struggles to win votes on Election Day. But can they be a little more specific? How about the freedom for same-sex couples to get married? No, we’re told, not that kind of freedom.
This is about a fight for American “liberties.”
That sounds great, too. Who’s against American “liberties”? But I’m still looking for some details. Might this include law-abiding American Muslims exercising their liberties and converting a closed-down clothing store into a community center? No, we’re told, not those kinds of liberties.
This is about giving Americans who work hard and play by the rules more opportunities.
I’m all for that, too. But would these opportunities include the chance for hard-working Americans to bring their kids to the doctor if they get sick, even if the family can’t afford insurance? No, we’re told, not those kinds of opportunities.
My–how pithy and glib! Only a journalist with the highest degree of discipline and training could ever string together such brilliant ripostes.
It would be easy to dismiss every leftist political rally or movement as without cause, if I were wont to be intellectually lazy and rather dishonest. How pissed would Mr. Benen be if his technique were applied to anti-Iraq War rallies? What of the Obama campaign and its accompanying political rallies? What animates leftist movements? What were there specific grievances during the Bush years? What of the ObamaCare debate?
Health care is a basic human right. This is about rights!
Well, I’m certainly for human rights. Who doesn’t support human rights? I’m still waiting for some details. What of the basic right of patients, doctors, and insurers to make informed decisions on the free market absent onerous government regulation? What of the basic human right of babies not to have their brains sucked out by an abortionist? No, we’re told, not those rights.
The gay rights movement is about freedom!
Well, I’m all about freedom. What about the right of a free people to make decisions that preserve the civil society? What about the freedom of a people to choose that marriage, by virtue of its very nature, implies exclusivity? No, we’re told, not that freedom.
This is all about tolerance. We must not brook any discussions on propriety, lest we be viewed as intolerant!
I’m all for tolerance, too. What about the ability to tolerate the point of view that although the Park 51 group has a legal right to build on land they own (no conservative disputes this essential point, which seems to elude liberals), they also have a moral obligation to understand tolerance goes both ways? No, we’re told, that’s not tolerance.
This is about leveling the playing field and giving people a hand up.
I’m all for a level playing field and ensuring the greatest opportunity possible for all people. Would that include the ability of people who just happen to have succeeded in life to keep their hard-earned money to pass on to their children? Would this include not allowing rules that are punitive to, say, white people, to exist in academia and elsewhere? No, we’re told, that’s not a level playing field.
This is about people willing to sacrifice some of their hard-earned money so that we can all enjoy a greater quality of life. We all have to do our part!
Wow, that’s wonderful! Would these “sacrifices” include liberals limiting the amount of unemployment insurance a person can get to 90’s era standards of sustainability? Would these sacrifices include Democrats sacrificing the possibility of a built-in voting block by denouncing amnesty once and forever to illegals who won’t sacrifice and stand in line? No, we’re told; not those sacrifices.
This is about speaking truth to power!
What a wonderful thought! Would that include disclosing the amount and source of funding for global warming research grants? Would this include not putting political enemies through procedural paces to see if you can trip them up? Would this include calling despots what they are, admitting the success of the Iraq War, or the effectiveness of the Bush tax cuts? No, we’re told, not those truths.
See how easy that is? If Mr. Benen wishes to be taken seriously every time out, maybe he ought to treat the opposition with a little more respect. The Mosque debate, health care reform, tax reform, immigration reform, and a whole slew of issues are serious and complex; while I believe that conservatism offers the best answers to these problems, I at least attempt not to treat every liberal and every liberal argument as though they are stupid and petty, nor do I sink to intellectual dishonesty (global warming is far from settled science, for instance; Mr. Benen could at least cede this point). But hey! –I suppose perhaps Mr. Benen’s point is that unless a movement has at its core the goal of advancing liberalism, it has no cause. What a shame.
Anyone who used to be a regular visitor to my blog probably realized that there was a sharp drop-off in posts starting roughly last October.
In October, my wife, Misty, was diagnosed as having breast cancer. Unfortunately, it was inflamatory; the most invasive type that one may suffer from. She appeared to be doing well after a few months of chemotherapy, but the cancer had spread to her brain. She underwent a couple of months of radiation therapy in addition to chemo treatment, but in April we were informed that her condition was terminal.
Misty continued to fight courageously for the next couple of month and seemed to be improving; however, after a brief trip to Wisconsin in June, she took a turn for the worse. After a week or so of hospitalization and a week of hospice care, my wife, my best friend, my lover, my parter, finally passed on July 10, 2010. She was 30 years old.
I don’t write this to attempt to garner any sympathy. I know my writing style is at times abrassive and bombastic. I write this because I love my baby. I miss her deeply, and will continue to do so until God calls me home–whenever that may be. In the meantime, I will make the best life for our three young children as possible.
Over the past few months I have had little real interest in politics and current events. This isn’t because I don’t care what happens in the world, but rather because I was solely focused on the events of my own life. Short of President Obama cutting my pay or outlawing my blue jeans, I wasn’t going to interrupt the flow of my own existence to blog.
I plan to begin blogging anew, starting basically immediately. I love my country; I love my countrymen, be they Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Socialists, Libertarians, or anything else. I love to write, and I love politics. Most of all, I love my family and my dearly departed wife, Misty Ann Iles. She wasn’t into politics nearly as much as I am, but she will kick my arse when I see her again if I don’t try to do the things that I love.
So here goes: I love you all and I love you, Misty. God rest your soul ’til we meet again.
Michael David Iles
Several state Attorneys General are proceeding with legal action against the recently passed health care “reform” bill, most notably on the grounds that the individual mandate is a gross violation of the expressed powers of Congress and a usurpation of state’s rights granted them under the Tenth Amendment.
SCOTUS long ago bastardized the Commerce Clause’s text in an effort to place a wide swath of economic activity under the purview of Congress. Most notably in Wickard v. Filburn SCOTUS ruled that a private farmer, growing wheat on his private farm, for his privately owned livestock, entirely for his own private consumption, was in violation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act and that Congress was within its right to order the destruction of the excess crop and payment of a fine by Mr. Filburn because the activity “affected” interstate commerce. The reasoning was: Mr. Filburn would have purchased the excess wheat on an interstate market.
Notwithstanding the gross overreach of both Congress and SCOTUS, does anyone see a pattern forming? Congress discerns a “problem”, an “injustice”, or “shortcoming” in normal market fluctuations and economic cycles, deems itself the only body capable of ameliorating said crisis, and when it invariably exacerbates mild crises or creates real problems, they point their fingers at the market and claim that further intervention is necessary. But I digress.
ObamaCare ostensibly makes the same sort of argument for the individual mandate and penalties that the SCOTUS affirmed in Filburn. The power of the legislature under the Commerce Clause has already been stretched well beyond the Framer’s intent.
I predicted this months ago. Under the auspices of “health care reform”, there is no facet of human activity that won’t be deemed to fall within the scope of regulation and coercion. Arguably, the Court already damned us with Filburn. If, taken on the aggregate, economic decisions that merely have bearing on “interstate commerce” are able to be regulated by the federal government, the same can be said of an individual’s decision to abstain from participation in a given market. In the case of ObamaCare, the government is using a distant and dicey proposition: if you get in to an accident, or get sick and can’t pay out-of-pocket, other people pay your costs–often across state lines. (When it comes to liberalism, if ‘if’ were a spliff, we’d all be stoned.) What if I don’t get into an accident or get sick? What if I just inexplicably drop dead when I’m old and gray–does my family get my money back? See, this question used to make sense through the novel prism of the “free market”. Insurance was predicated on risk and community pooling. Now, it’s based on Congressional fiat.
What about my decision not to buy a car? Surely that affects interstate commerce. I’m denying a car manufacturer money that would have gone toward their product, which involves commerce between the states. Can I be compelled to buy a car? More to the point, my dietary decisions “affect” my health and therefore my health care and insurance requirements. Can I be compelled to purchase health food, dietary supplements, or be denied certain foods based upon my health?
And then there’s the matter of ObamaCare’s usurpation of state’s rights. Under this legislation, states effectively become appendages of the federal government. They are burdened with onerous Medicaid requirements that essentially make state government workers into federal government employees.
If the Commerce Clause can be used to compel the purchase of a private product as a condition of legal residence, and if the Tenth Amendment is nothing more than a symbolic nod toward the states–yeah, yeah, we know you’re supposed to be “sovereign”–then there are no such things as Constitutionally limited government or federalism. The legal issues raised by Attorneys General all over the place aren’t cynical and desperate political posturing–they’re valid objections to poorly reasoned argumentation from the left and tyrannical overreach on the part of the Congress. Even given the liberal wing of the Court’s slavish devotion to stare decisis, I’m confident ObamaCare will be found unconstitutional. It’s either that, or the Constitution holds no real meaning anymore.
More Narrative-Crushing Goodness: “A Trip Down Memory Lane” Reminds Us of Not-So-Congenial Democrat Protesters
From Evan Maloney comes another reminder of what life was like back in the halcyon days when protest was patriotic:
This refresher course in liberal perfidy is timely, considering that the fascistic war to criminalize conservative ideas continues with two eerily similar columns written by Charles Blow and Frank Rich (via Newsbusters):
From Blow column of March 26
The bullying, threats, and acts of violence following the passage of health care reform have been shocking, but they’re only the most recent manifestations of an increasing sense of desperation.
It’s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of “take our country back.” The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.
Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.
From Frank Rich’s column of March 27
That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.
. . .
If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.
Despite the storied tradition of liberal media bias in America, it’s always somewhat shocking to see liberal columnists fall into lock-step on the liberal talking point of the day, even after their suppositions have been thoroughly exposed and savaged.
The New York Times really needs to abandon all pretense and start selling itself as a slightly more sophisticated version of Mother Jones.
Since reports have surfaced that two Democratic members of Congress have had bricks thrown through their windows or some such other incidences of vandalism, liberals have fully reverted to script. They’ve occupied themselves over the past week with the peculiar narrative that Republicans are sore losers who have incited tea party nutjobs to violence.
But wait!–there’s more! On Friday, the DNC sent a memo to RNC headquarters urging a joint declaration calling for an end to “incivility”, whatever the hell that means. Republicans, knowing that Democrats would promptly use this declaration to bash them over the heads every time they nervously begged to disagree with Congressional Democrats, politely declined.
Two incidences of vandalism, a handful of phone calls to Democrats not precisely wishing them well–which is far different from making a threat to cause bodily harm to a person–and suddenly, womanly liberals want to pull out the hand fans and fainting couches.
That Eric Cantor’s office suffered (inadvertently, it may be) vandalism is indicative of nothing. Nothing to see here, folks! Nor, apparently, do the past nine or so years of American history. Briefly, from the Free Republic, is a list of incidents that apparently bear no relationship to progressives in general, and were absolutely not incited by Congressional Democrats and liberal punditry who routinely accused a sitting president of having lied the nation in to war (he didn’t), having shredded the Constitution, having ruthlessly stamped out dissent, and finally, of having used the Cobra Command weather generator to cause a hurricane and destroy levees in New Orleans:
September 2, 2004: Gun Shot Fired Into Huntington, WV, Republican Headquarters.
September 3, 2004: Windows Broken, Anti-Bush Messages Scrawled At Gallatin County, MT, Republican Headquarters.
September 2004: John Kerry supporters and other libs/dems take to the streets of NYC destroying property, beating a NYC detective into a state of unconsciousness and harassing/threatening attendees during the 2004 GOP convention in NYC
September 6, 2004: Huntington, WV, Republican Headquarters Egged.
September 13, 2004: Swastika Drawn On Duluth, MN, Resident’s Lawn, Signs Also Defaced With Words “Nazi” And “Liar.”
September 16, 2004: Community College Professor In Florida Punched Republican County Chairman In Face.
September 22, 2004: West Elmira, NY, Resident Found Swastika Drawn On Bush Campaign Sign In His Yard.
September 23, 2004: Office Ransacked During Break-In At Vilas County, WI, Republican Headquarters, Obscene Words And Graphic Pictures Sprayed On Campaign Signs.
September 26, 2004: Windows Smashed And Signs Stolen At Oxford, MS, Bush-Cheney ‘04 Headquarters.
October 1, 2004: Laptops Of Executive And Field Director Stolen From Bush-Cheney ‘04 Headquarters In Seattle, WA.
October 1, 2004: Swastika Burned Into Front Yard Of Bush-Cheney ‘04 Supporter In Madison, WI.
October 2, 2004: Collinsville, OH, Resident Chains Down Bush-Cheney ‘04 Signs After Several Signs Stolen And One Was Replaced With Kerry Sign.
October 3, 2004: Burglary At Thousand Oaks, CA, Victory 2004 Headquarters Where Bush-Cheney ‘04 Banner Was Stolen From Outside Premises.
October 5, 2004: Gun Shots Fired Into Knoxville, TN, Bush-Cheney ‘04 Office, Shattering Office’s Glass Front Doors.
October 5, 2004: AFL-CIO ACTIVISTS RANSACK BUSH HEADQUARTERS IN ORLANDO, The Orlando Sentinel . . . part of 20 coordinated union attacks across U.S.
October 8, 2004: Two Men Were Caught On A Hidden Camera Tearing Down And Urinating On Bush-Cheney ‘04 Sign In Akron, OH.
October 9, 2004: Oxnard, CA, Supporter Placing Bush-Cheney ‘04 In Yards Verbally Abused, Knocked Down And Had Signs Stolen.
October 9, 2004: Bush-Cheney Signs Near Vail, CO, Cut In Half And Burned In “Ransacking.”
October 10, 2004: Office Windows Broken And Field Director’s Laptop Bag and Purse Stolen In Burglary At Canton, OH, Victory Office.
October 11, 2004: Windows Broken, Petty Cash Stolen And Computers Tampered With In Burglary At Spokane, WA, Victory 2004 Headquarters.
October 13, 2004: Walls And Windows Of York, PA, Victory 2004 Headquarters Vandalized With Pro-Kerry Spray-Paint And Signs Outside Destroyed.
October 13, 2004: Window Smashed At Laconia, NH, Victory 2004 Headquarters.
October 13, 2004: Kerry Supporter Caught Stealing Bush Sign In Cape Girardeau, MO, Pulled Knife On Sign’s Owner And Was Arrested.
October 15, 2004: Someone Destroyed Large Plywood Bush-Cheney ‘04 Sign, Then Tried To Smash Debris Though Glass Door Of Santa Fe, NM, Republican Party Headquarters.
October 15, 2004: Someone Lined Window Sill With Bullet Casings At Littleton, NH, Republican Headquarters.
October 16, 2004: Unknown Suspects Vandalized Large Bush-Cheney Campaign Sign In Hollister, CA, With Obscenities.
October 17, 2004: Stickers Placed Over Windows Of Gettysburg, PA, Victory 2004 Headquarters.
October 18, 2004: Eggs Thrown At Keene, NH, Victory 2004 Headquarters.
October 18, 2004: 21 Protesters Arrested At Bush-Cheney ‘04 Campaign Headquarters In Arlington, VA.
October 20, 2004: Rocks Thrown Through Windows At Multnomah County, OR, Republican Party Headquarters.
October 21, 2004: Bomb Threat Made Against Lake Havasu, AZ, Republican Party Headquarters.
October 21, 2004: Windows Smashed At Multnomah County Republican Party Headquarters In Portland, OR.
October 22, 2004: Break-In Discovered At Cincinnati, OH, Victory 2004 Headquarters.
October 22, 2004: Break-In Discovered At Flagstaff, AZ, Victory 2004 Headquarters. Perpetrators gained entry by throwing a cinder block through a plate glass window.
October 22, 2004: Chunk Of Concrete Tossed Through Glass Door Of Republican Headquarters In Santa Cruz, CA.
October 23, 2004: Two Kerry Supporters Arrested After Stealing Pro-Bush Signs From Activist And Pushing Police Officer At Edwards Rally In St. Petersburg, FL.
November, 2004: Editors say Yale Free Press stolen Yale Daily News
November 2004, Election Day: 30 vans intended for getting out the vote in Milwaukee in 2004 had their tires slashed . . .Of the four men who were arrested, one is the son of Democratic U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, and one is the son of former acting Milwaukee Mayor Marvin Pratt.
Note that this is from the year 2004 alone. From their lofty perches on their fainting couches liberal scribblers have penned ignorant missives that all but accuse Congressional Republicans of whipping flash-mobs into a murderous frenzy, apparently with caustic phrases like, “hell, no!”, “kill the bill!”, and “we disagree”.
Now that you’ve hopefully taken a moment to pry yourself off the floor and regain your composure after reading this shocking news, forgive me if you can hear peels of laughter through the interwebs. I’m laughing at liberals that hard.
To be sure, these isolated acts of vandalism and any credible threats are completely unacceptable, intolerable, and should be investigated. Any perpetrators should be brought to justice and made to provide restitution, if applicable. But where does an insanely idiotic rant like this find any basis in reality?
But back to the main theme. What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party’s leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was “Armageddon.” The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee’s chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on “the firing line.” And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.
I think idiot Krugman has confused “incitement” with “mild hyperbole of an opinon shared by more than half the country”. Again, I apologize for this hideous imagery. Pelosi surrounded by flames? What of Bush decked out in full Nazi garb? Does Mr. Krugman have anything in his vile file on that? What of Alan Grayson’s declaration that GOPers just want people to “die quickly”? What does his crystal ball say about that? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?
Maureen Dowd, Charles Blow, Paul Krugman, Dana Milbank, Tim Kaine… they are all the same: spineless cowards who couldn’t have cared less when actual violence was perpetrated on the basis of slanderous lies and irresponsible insinuation propagated by themselves and the DNC purely for political gain. If the RNC is “inciting” mob violence, I’d like a more concrete example than a poster with crosshairs that clearly advocates taking someone out politically, through the process of elections.
It’s telling that the week after a supposedly “historic” health care “victory”, liberals are wholly occupied with smearing a whole segment of the population commonly known as “the majority”, rather than talking up the wildly outstanding merits of the newly passed legislation they claim to love so much, to wit: there are no merits. They are well aware that ObamaCare is an unmitigated disaster, so they’re left with one option: distract the voters in order to drum up sympathy and make the opposition look unreasonable. The closer we come to November, to repealing and replacing ObamaCare, the more we are going to hear that every act of violence that occurs within 1,000 square miles of a liberal is another act perpetrated by right-wing nutjobs incited by irresponsibility of Republicans audacious enough to say “no”.
UPDATE: Dan Collins at POWIP.com has a great rundown on the current meme. Check it out!