From Erik Rush's March 25 WorldNetDaily column:
So, America, have you deduced that the current occupant of the White House, his underlings and congressional leaders are manifestly evil -- or are you going to wait until they're gunning us down in the streets?
On March 22, WND reprinted remarks made by President Barack Obama on March 21, after the House passed the much-contested health-care reform bill.
Many of you (those over 35) recall hearing Soviet leaders deliver speeches just like Obama's. Do you remember chuckling sardonically, knowing their words were lies and that their people were essentially nothing but slave labor, toiling to maintain a cyclopean, hideously ineffective mega-bureaucracy and a pitiless, criminal privileged class?
How far across the line do our elected officials have to traverse before we come to the conclusion we've come to as regards history's infamous tyrannical oppressors - that they are of low character, possess malign intent, and that is why they crave this degree of power? Will we have to see Americans executed in stadiums by former ACORN workers before we believe? Will we allow ourselves to be shepherded into a position where we are truly powerless to stop those who will do because they can?
I don't know how many Americans are really so dim -- as opposed to advocating this abomination -- that they haven't a hint yet that abject tyranny is halfway through the door. But I, like others, believe that if enough people in their right minds become engaged, we still may be able to stem the tide until we can dispose of the Democratic majority in Congress and Barack Hussein Obama. We will have to be equally vigilant, however, that we replace them with nationalistic, conservative Americans, rather than smiling RINO whores; people who know who our enemies are and who won't play nice with those enemies.
While we are doing that, for the next hundred years - at least - we must vigorously and relentlessly beat the drum of progressivism being as great an evil as any historical atrocity.
From a March 24 Confederate Yankee blog post:
No matter what you think of Obamacare and the craven ideologues that passed it, is totally unacceptable to threaten their relatives or friends and put them in danger.
Go to your Congressman's office and scream at him in the most colorful language possible. Hang him in effigy at protests. If you're willing to do the time for the crime, have a swing at him.
Better yet, throw a shoe... after all, the left values such behavior as a form of "vigorous dissent," and will no doubt ask for any charges against you to be dropped.
Perhaps one day stronger action will be required if Progressives continue to trample on our liberties in their blind quest for power. But that time is not now.
At this time, I suspect Shikha Dalmia's call for massive civil disobedience is the correct path. Show your anger. Make sure those who have trampled your liberties are stuck down by ballots. With your help, the Democratic Party's assault on the Republic can be undone.
The right way.
From a March 25 BigGovernment.com post:
Democrats and the leftist media are all atwitter about alleged threats of violence against Congressmen who voted for ObamaCare. We doubt these threats are actually real and, certainly wouldn't condone them. But, here's a tip: Hey Democrats, if you are worried about an angry public, how about not passing a sweeping government expansion opposed by 70% of the public. Just a thought.
On the March 24 edition of Hannity, Sean Hannity proved that even when corrected on an issue by a fellow conservative, he'll plow ahead no matter what the facts are. Hannity was discussing the new health care law with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and repeated the false claim that congress was exempt from the health exchanges in the bill. Sen. DeMint quickly corrected him:
That did not deter the intrepid Mr. Hannity, as minutes later he expressed his shock about the (nonexistent) exemptions in the law. Amazingly, Hannity referenced the very conversation in which Sen. DeMint had corrected his misinformation!
Once more, into the breach Hannity went a few minutes later, this time arguing with Juan Williams about the mythical exemptions in the bill. Echoing Sen. DeMint, Williams debunked Hannity, but these facts were mere playthings for Hannity to swat aside.
Hannity demonstrated once again that he wasn't going to let anything like the actual facts or multiple debunkings get in the way of putting some misinformation out there. But then, that's what Fox News has been doing all along.
Midge Costanza, a former Rochester, NY city councilwoman and lesbian activist, died yesterday. The former Carter administration aide is credited with handling the first ever White House meeting with gay leaders, though you wouldn't know that or that she was a lesbian if you learned of her death from this widely circulated Associated Press obituary:
Margaret ''Midge'' Costanza, an aide to then-President Jimmy Carter, a veteran political activist and women's rights champion, died Tuesday. She was 77.
The San Diego County district attorney's office said she died after a battle with cancer. She joined the office as a public affairs officer in 2005.
Costanza was elected to the city council in Rochester, N.Y., in 1973 and met Carter the following year when he campaigned for her in an unsuccessful bid for Congress.
She was co-chair of Carter's presidential campaign in New York and seconded his nomination at the Democratic National Convention. In the White House, she was assistant to the president, the first woman to hold that office.
"The White House should be the President's window to the nation," she said, according to the district attorney's office.
Costanza remained active in Democratic politics after moving to San Diego in 1990.
She also worked for women's equality, the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, women's reproductive rights and the appointment of more women to political offices.
From a March 24 blog post by Rev. Jim Wallis on The Huffington Post:
C'mon Glenn. Have me on the show! Give me my own blackboard. And let's have a real debate about "social justice!" You've got to be able to do better than this. Just because a fascist and anti-Semitic demagogue in the 1930s like Father Coughlin twisted the term social justice to justify his tirades, please don't say "Jim Wallis is Coughlin." Now you're going to make my rabbi friends mad too, not just the Christians. And please stop accusing Christians who teach social justice with support for totalitarian governments on the Right or the Left. Christian social justice does not equal totalitarian government, but on the contrary, has always tried to hold government accountable to the needs of "the least of these."
Listen to what we teach: you start by practicing social justice in your own life, then you act for social justice in your family, your congregation, your community, in the most local way possible. The Catholics call that "subsidiarity" -- look it up. And you only work to change government when you can't accomplish things on a smaller scale. Churches were the very best in responding to Katrina, for example, but churches can't build levees. And Glenn, voluntary church action can't provide health care for millions who don't have it, or fix broken urban school systems, or provide jobs at fair wages, or protect our kids from toxic air, water, and toys, or fix a broken immigration system that is grinding up our vulnerable families, or keep banks from cheating our people. All that requires commitments to holding governments accountable to social justice, and advocating for better public policies. Christians have done that for many years, especially in democratic governments where they have the opportunity. Take a breath Glenn, your phobia about any government makes you see "Marxists" under every rock -- and in every Christian heart and congregation. Give it a rest!
We start with God, not government (remember your diagram Glenn); we start with changing lives, not policies; we always start on the home front in our families, congregations, and communities; and only address public policies when we can't do it ourselves. That's Christian social justice, Glenn, a passion for the gospel and the poor-- not for totalitarian government.
At least 80 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred for white people." Here are his March 24 sponsors, in the order they appeared (scroll down for Beck's March 23 sponsors):
Here are his March 23 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
The folks at Gallup are starting to annoy me.
Last week, they trumpeted the fact that Obama, according to their polling results, had fallen to his "lowest" point in his presidency. Gallup made a very big deal about the finding and glossed over the fact that Obama's new bench mark was exactly one point below his previous low.
Yes, one point. That was the news hook. (And yes, that one point clearly fell within Gallup's margin of error.) So how does Gallup describe its latest finding regarding the passage of health care reform?
Behold [emphasis added]:
By Slim Margin, Americans Support Healthcare Bill's Passage.
And what, exactly, constitutes that "slim margin" in today's deeply polarized political world? Two points? Four points? Try nine (i.e. 49 - 40%)
So when Obama's approval rating inched down from 47 to 46%, it was a very big deal, according to Gallup. But when a sudden and large gap opens up in terms of how American view health care reform, that's simply a "slim margin."
Good to know.
Just about every time I include David Frum's views on anything related to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, I hear about it from fellow his fellow conservatives in comments and emails. Frum, they'll say, doesn't speak for them.
Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has strong views on the future of the Republican Party, and is respected by some leading figures on the right, as Daniel Libit wrote last September in POLITICO. But he's got a lot of right-wing foes, too, especially in the talk radio world.
And it seems he also has a critic in Tunku Varadarajan, a former Wall Street Journal editorial board member and now a writer at the Daily Beast. For Varadarajan, Frum is representative of a certain speecies of conservative that one may find in cities connected by the Acela.
David is a man I've known professionally for almost a decade, and with whom my social interaction has always been very genial. He is a good and energetic man, and has, in the years since he left service at the White House, dedicated himself to being what I call a "polite-company conservative" (or PCC), much like David Brooks and Sam Tanenhaus at the New York Times (where the precocious Ross Douthat is shaping up to be a baby version of the species). A PCC is a conservative who yearns for the goodwill of the liberal elite in the media and in the Beltway-who wishes, always, to have their ear, to be at their dinner parties, to be comforted by a sense that their liberal interlocutors believe that they are not like other conservatives, with their intolerance and boorishness, their shrillness and their talk radio. The PCC, in fact, distinguishes himself from other conservatives not so much ideologically-though there is an element of that-as aesthetically.
So, Varadarajan thinks Frum, Brooks and Tanenhaus are "polite-company conservatives." Read his description of that term one more time: "[A] conservative who yearns for the goodwill of the liberal elite in the media and in the Beltway-who wishes, always, to have their ear, to be at their dinner parties, to be comforted by a sense that their liberal interlocutors believe that they are not like other conservatives, with their intolerance and boorishness, their shrillness and their talk radio."
Implied in the very term "polite-company conservative" is the notion that because of their behavior and ability to mince words or hold back, such people are welcome with open arms by the media elite, i.e. they are acceptable in polite company. They get column space, marquee television time, and invitations to fancy parties etc. In other words, they are accepted... a form of validation bestowed by our media.
This is, of course, ridiculous. The idea that the Frums of this world have done anything to become "polite-company conservatives" is a load of crap. If anything, they represent the rare exception of thoughtful media conservatives who largely refrain from nastiness and bomb-throwing.
It would be far more accurate - if speaking from the mentality of our media - to term people like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and other similar conservative media stars as "polite-company conservatives." After all, they can say anything -- no matter how offensive or wrong -- and it doesn't seem to keep them off of tony programs like the Today Show, The View, Good Morning America or the major broadcast and cable news networks. In other words, they can do or say anything and still be accepted in "polite-company."
I guess you could call it the media's golden rule when it comes to punditry: Conservatives are mainstream no matter how right-wing, bigoted or otherwise untruthful their views, while progressives can't stray too far from the center or else they risk being considered illegitimate and not part of polite company.
Need more evidence?
I'm sure Ann Coulter has a new book on the horizon (doesn't she always?) and we all know her history. If you think that history will keep her from making the rounds on the cable and broadcast news chat shows, think again. It never has before.
When was the last time that someone as liberal and mean-spirited as Ann Coulter is conservative and mean-spirited got even a minute of time in front of the camera?
Then again, I struggle to even think of a liberal example that fits the Coulter-mold.
Here's Laura Bush's former flak, days before the health care vote [emphasis added]:
A Pollster.com average of polls showed 48% in opposition and 44% in support, which forced the president's pollster to make the strange argument that even though most don't now like the plan, they will come to after it passes in a congressional vote, likely late this week.
Last week, Malcolm sneered at the "strange" idea that voters would have a higher opinion of health care reform after it passed Congress. Fat chance, the deeply knowledgeable pundit implied.
From USA Today:
More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.