If you’ve ever wondered why some nations have no respect for America, it’s not because we are aggressive. It’s because we’re not.
Now tell me, why would anyone in his right mind want to start a new business or expand an existing business under these types of conditions.
Now ask yourself, where will the jobs come from to grow our economy?
The Democrats only solution is grow government and create new government (union) jobs; an unsustainable choice.
Today, liberal mouthpiece MSNBC took a step forward in moving political debate to a more reasonable, civil tone, announcing that Keith Olbermann’s contract would be terminated. How long before Chris Matthews gets the axe?
Speaking of violent imagery and Chris Matthews… Why is Chris Matthews displaying a target and crosshairs on the U.S. Capitol?
Simon Jenkins writing for the UK’s Guardian says “free speech can’t exist unchained.”
Hey Simon, your editorial shows that you have absolutely zero understanding of the 1st Amendment, what it stands for, and why we have it. We fought a war with you to gain that right. Our country’s Founding Fathers risked death for treason at the hand of your king. Speaking out against the government is exactly the purpose of the 1st Amendment and its protections. If you think what we have today is “vitriolic,” why don’t you spend some time reading what the Founding Fathers wrote about King George.
I respect Governor LePage for his blunt language telling the NAACP that they can “kiss his butt.” They wanted him to attend an MLK, Jr. Day event at a Maine prison and meet with only the black prisoners. LePage said he would do it, but only if he met with ALL the prisoners. That wasn’t OK with the NAACP so LePage said, “tough luck.”
Of course MediaMatters has gotten involved in the blame game of the Tuscon Tragedy. David Brock has posted an open letter to Rupert Murdoch outlining that he warned of violence as a result of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin’s “extreme anti-government rhetoric.” Since his “previous warnings were laughed off and ignored. For the country’s sake, [he hopes] you take them more seriously now.”
Except that he fails to draw any logical connection between the shooter Jared Loughner and any comments from Palin or Beck. It’s all merely conjecture.
Also, as I have pointed out, there is a difference between “anti-government” rhetoric and being anti-BIG-government. Hey, Brock – here’s a thought. Since you want the right to be careful with their words, why don’t you do the same. You know full well that you are misrepresenting the facts by using the term “anti-government.” And since that is intended to stir up concern over Palin and Beck on the airwaves, isn’t that in essence also the politics of fear? Or is that only valid when someone on the right is speaking of the left?
I highly recommend you read Neal Boortz’s post today titled quite simply “The Tuscon Tragedy.”
Boortz, as usual, nails the heart of the matter,
What SHOULD we be talking about in the aftermath of the horrible shooting in Tucson? We should be praying for the compete recovery of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. We should be expressing our sympathy of the families of the other victims. We should be discussing the irony of a little girl born on September 11, 2001 being killed in a senseless act of violence nine years later. There should be discussions on failures in our system that permits mentally deranged people access to weapons and political leaders. Discussion on security for our elected officials would also be appropriate. Though these items were included in the conversation over the weekend .. they all took a back seat to talk driven by the left and the ObamaMedia over the supposed role that evil right wingers, Sarah Palin and the Tea Parties in particular, played in this situation.
He goes on to expose the double standard when it comes to violent rhetoric from the Left. I won’t reproduce the text and links here, just go to boortz.com and read it for yourself.
The Democrats are certainly listening to Rahm Emanuel’s mantra of “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” They are wasting no time in using the tragic shooting in Arizona to grow government control.
The expected reactionary response comes from Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), who is looking to introduce new gun control legislation as early as today. We shouldn’t be surprised. We know that for the left, gun control isn’t really about guns; it’s about control.
“Vitriol” is the new boogeyman
Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Brady is introducing legislation to control your speech. This has now been supported by another Congressman, Texas Democrat Rep. Rubén Hinojosa. We can’t have people running around “targeting” people in their “crosshairs.” (We are still unclear if this only applies to the right, or if “bringing a gun to a knife fight” is ok.)
If would like to remind you both, Congressmen, that the text of the First Amendment reads as follows (emphasis mine),
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Check out NY Democrat James Clyburn on Ed Schultz’s show. He admits you can’t draw a direct link to clinically depraved Jerod Loughner (who actually was a Karl Marx loving anti-government paranoid) and the “rhetoric” of Tea Party activism. (Of course, that won’t stop him from using this opportunity to call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. )
And he makes a real stretch: “All this stuff taking place in the chambers the other day when the Constitution was being read… all that stuff is uncalled for.” Mr. Clyburn, are you actually suggesting that the reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House contributes to “vitriol” and violence like we saw this weekend?
Once again, when it is the right speaking out against the left, it is hate speech. If it’s the left condemning the right (even if there is no connection), well that’s legitimate political discourse.
Pennsylvania Congressman Bob Brady wants to introduce a bill that would disallow the use of certain words (such as “target” and “crosshairs”) in talking about Congressional races. He says these could incite violence against members of Congress. Of course, we know he is specifically referring to Sarah Palin’s use of crosshairs on a map of congressional races during the 2010 mid-terms.
So, I’m wondering… does that effect the President of the United States? Will Barack Obama be able to say things like “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” as he did in the 2008 campaign? In that same statement, which incidentally was made to members of Brady’s district, Obama also said, “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl.”
If Jared Loughner had shot someone in Philly, would the left be saying the President should tone down his rhetoric and “hate speech?”
And remember the halloween display of Sarah Palin in a noose?